W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:15:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdhnB=b1ZD3rM8jZpc9T0WOYN_gYFz2z46NAW2sDcyypQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
I'd say that the current stance is that anything which isn't part of the
past set of usecases for http will not be considered for h2.

This is disappointing, but there it is. It is difficult to do anything
forward looking in committee, regardless of its venue or the talent of its
members.
On Jul 15, 2014 6:55 PM, "Yutaka Hirano" <yhirano@google.com> wrote:

> I'm a bit behind, can you tell me what you mean by "semantic-free" HEADERS?
> It the current stance for extensions (such as WebSocket) "Do not abuse
> HTTP related frames. Instead, define and use extension-specific frames"?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 July 2014 09:46, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can try to start h2 and then upgrade to websockets if the ALPN
>>> negotiation selects http1.1.
>>>
>>
>> Currently this kind if decision is made above the browser in javascript
>> libraries that have to decide if they are going to use websocket or long
>> polling.  If they use long polling, for h1 they have to be aware of
>> connection limits and currently some assume 2, while others have been
>> updated to 6.  A much higher connection==stream limit will need to be
>> applied if long polling over h2.     But these frameworks don't have the
>> ability to take part in h2/upgrade negotiations and any knowledge they get
>> about protocol versions will be late.  They probably don't have access to
>> max stream settings, so will be guessing again.
>>
>> Now if h2 had supported websocket semantics from day 1, then these
>> libraries could have just handed over the messages to the browser and it
>> would be up to the browser to work out the best way to transport.
>>
>> Anyway.... I've made my point (several times) that I think it was a
>> mistake for the charter to not support all the current web semantics.  I
>> guess that horse bolted a long time ago.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
>> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
>> scales
>> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 03:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC