W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:21:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbebgNFE0xqDW+zTfUAgcPyKc2zCc8u7DDTfoekk=RYOEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
This kind of escape hatch thinking is nonsense. Yes, 1.1 isn't going
anywhere anytime soon, but the goal shouldn't be creating a 2.0 that
intentionally only works for a subset of users.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
> Hi all again
>
> another thing that has been bugging me is the number of comments about just
> using http/1.1 in such and such a use case where e.g. crypto is not
> desirable.
>
> IMO this may work in the short term, but as more of the internet moves to
> http/2.0 which hopefully will solve some other security and performance
> issues with the current web, there will be increased pressure to turn off
> http/1.1 in corporate networks if only to minimise risk of continued
> exposure to those issues.
>
> So I don't think relying on indefinite continued availability of http/1.1
> versions or infrastructure is realistic - at least not in the extent to
> which it is currently deployed.
>
> Adrien
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 16:22:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC