W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:33:45 +0000
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CFF6942F-63CD-4668-B978-6E712A6A8B3D@lukasa.co.uk>
To: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>

> On 2 Dec 2016, at 03:43, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com> wrote:
> 
> The basic problem is you can't deploy an h2 server that also does ws,
> even in a not very efficient way.  This seems like something failed
> somewhere, and one way or another should be enabled.
> 
> ^--- that's all the "convincing" I plan to do.

I assume that what you mean here is you can’t deploy a H2 *only* server that also does WS: that is, a server with no HTTP/1.1 stack.

To which I reply: so what? Last I looked no-one was deploying servers that can *only* do HTTP/2 except in very specific cases where they are deliberately seeing the HTTP/2 use-cases (the only two instances I know of are Apple’s new Push Notification Service and Amazon’s Alexa API, both of which are HTTP/2 only: presumably they considered and rejected the use of WS, and it didn’t stop them shipping their product).

I don’t think anyone is planning to move to a HTTP/2-only server stack anytime soon, and we have a whole bunch of servers that have mature and battle-tested HTTP/1.1 stacks that aren’t going anywhere. So I’m not really convinced that there’s any demand for H2-only + WS. Of course, I might be wrong (I’m wrong a lot).

Cory
Received on Friday, 2 December 2016 11:34:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 December 2016 11:34:39 UTC