Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

Actually in this case I'm worried about latency more than the cost of
additional connections!
I don't want to spend the extra RTs necessary to set up additional (and not
that useful) SSL connections if it is avoidable.
Requiring that would make HTTP/2.0 significantly slower than HTTP/1 in many
cases where domain sharding has been used. :(
-=R


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2 July 2013 12:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, there are cases where the mechanism spec'd in SPDY today is
> suboptimal.
> > That seems like a poor reason to reject it, however, when the
> alternative is
> > guaranteed suboptimality.
>
> That's true, the coalescing that SPDY does won't work 100% of the
> time, but the times where it does work will make (most) things better.
>  If by better you mean fewer connections - and we're fairly sure that
> is actually better.
>