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: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:37:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeOrTTtF_J09NR=D+VrU-wzY017oXKfb0AKJPV0t6mCdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That depends on what the objective function is here.

I believe that our objective function should be to make the users'
aggregate experience, including predictable 2nd order effects, a better one
on the whole.
The objective function of replacing the protocol for all users seems not as
interesting to me-- it is more of an action and focuses too little on
result.

-=R


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:21 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 16:37:40 UTC

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