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

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:00:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcNx2OcjPd5dwP4joMHHnd-Gk_-Hpv7tQyD5yP9uh+7sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
Note that we'll always have to do downgrade-- perhaps someone deploys a
proxy which doesn't speak HTTP/2, or perhaps the site administrator deploys
a different server or load balancer that only speaks HTTP/1.1 when it used
to do HTTP/2.
These will happen and must be addressed.


> 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.
>

I disagree-- I want the user to experience the lowest latency possible for
all sites possible whenever possible! :)

-=R
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 22:01:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 August 2012 22:01:20 GMT