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

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:52:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcMO3yL3D0vtnPmU63CNKgYLzMa+Eveo52edBVBK8m72Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, 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 3:00 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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! :)
>
>
The more I read through this conversation, the more I worry that all this
talk about zero-latency upgrade negotiation through multiple hops of
arbitrary 1.1 or 2.0 servers is going to lead to significantly more
complexity than originally hoped -- and not the acceptable good kind of
complexity that delivers real benefits in the end.

- James


> -=R
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:53:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:53:40 GMT