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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:08:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isRunZdAEGFWKCv__pPPjd3sZ23hUqvPoEL8v_azjE5UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Actually, it’s being used repeatedly to defend one specific design option
for HTTP/2: Strong privacy requirements.  The benefits of this seem high.
And the costs are arguably quite bearable given that anyone who can’t pay
them has the free HTTP/1.1 option.


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but the "they can just use 1.1" argument is being used consistently
> to justify design choices for 2.0. That's just wrong.
> On Nov 23, 2013 9:36 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> Unconvinced. Life is full of trade-offs. Enhancing HTTP/2's privacy story
>> is not without costs. When balancing costs and benefits, it's reasonable to
>> consider that the costs may be mitigated by the continuing availability of
>> HTTP/1.1. It's not axiomatic that HTTP/2 has to be the single best choice
>> in all situations, in order to be a success.
>> On Nov 23, 2013 8:40 PM, "Matthew Kerwin" <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  (that can still use HTTP/1.1 if they want to!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have to chime in here.  I keep seeing this point mentioned on the
>>> list.  This is not a valid counterpoint, or a justification for adding
>>> something to HTTP/2, or an excuse for ignoring someone's use-case for HTTP.
>>>  If anybody chooses HTTP/1.1 over HTTP/2 for _any reason_ other than
>>> laziness or stubborn change aversion, then HTTP/2 has failed in its primary
>>> purpose.
>>>
>>> --
>>>   Matthew Kerwin
>>>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>>>
>>
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 07:08:48 UTC

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