- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:14:30 -0600
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:07:07PM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> >> If I Rob this correctly, this may mean that a future version of IE will >> >> implement HTTP 2.0 without encryption for http: URIs. >> >> >> >> Next let's say that Apache 3.0 implements HTTP 2.0 which can be >> >> configured to run without encryption (after all, Apache is used in >> >> internal contexts, too). >> >> >> >> What's the chance of this *not* leaking out into the open internet and >> >> forcing other browser vendors to also allow HTTP 2.0 for http: URIs >> >> without encryption? After all, experience has shown that users quickly >> >> abandon a browser that doesn't work for some websites, and that browser >> >> vendors know about this and try to avoid it. >> > >> > And so what ? It's not a problem. Some browsers will likely implement >> > it at least with a config option that's disabled by default, and these >> > browsers will be the ones picked by developers during their tests, >> > because developers pick the browser that makes their life easier. >> >> And web servers also need to have an option to operate HTTP/2.0 on >> plain TCP to make dev's life easier. It's difficult to see why >> browsers/servers would risk to alienate developers. So most browsers >> and servers would end up with the capability of talking HTTP/2.0 over >> TCP. >> > > Just to be clear, I'm a browser vendor speaking here, representing my own > personal views, but those generally align with the Chromium project. And no, > we don't have plans to support HTTP/2.0 in the clear. Firefox developers > like Pat have said similar things. So you're simply factually wrong in your > assertion about browsers. I was just predicting. It's a hassle to setup TLS during development. How does google handle it internally in developing your SPDY services? > >> >> >> > >> > Willy >> > >> > >> >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 18:14:57 UTC