- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:27:50 -0600
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
What I hear is: A: here's why encryption is a pro for http2 B: here's why encryption is a con for http2 A: well you can use http1, so encryption is not a con for http2. On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:33 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 19:28:17 UTC