W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:47:03 +0300
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2A8028EE-0EEC-4E42-89C4-347C33F60B90@checkpoint.com>

On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:14 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> We should if it's possible. Suppose HTTP/2.0 looks much like the SPDY draft.
>> How can you ever get a current HTTP/1 server to reply to this? 
> 
> That's why I've been saying from the start that SPDY was an interesting
> prototype, and now we should throw it away, and start from scratch, being
> better informed by what SPDY taught us.

A requirement for downgrade creates too many restrictions, even if we throw SPDY away. The beginning of a 2.0 connection would have to look enough like 1.x so as to fool existing servers. 

I think we should live with upgrade only, as long as clients can cache the knowledge that a certain server supports 2.0, so that they can skip the upgrade the next time. The extra roundtrip on a first encounter is not that bad.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 20:47:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 August 2012 20:47:23 GMT