- From: <jg@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 14:06:05 -0500
- To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Strategies that are 4 pages long are usually incomprehensible. Here is my personal belief of a reasonable evolutionary strategy for HTTP (but in one page): HTTP 1.0. Current deployed protocol HTTP 1.1 Has host header, etc, given the current consensus on the mailing list. Current list of other stuff that makes 1.1. HTTP 1.2? HTTP 2.X Multiplexing protocol, still MIME based. A number of us have been working on such a thing for the last few months. See http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP-NG/mux/WD-mux-960315.html for a multiplexing protocol design (a more compact and extensible version of Simon Spero's SCP). (Note that this is a draft of a draft and is guaranteed to change, rather than an actual W3 working draft). Also note that this MUX protocol can multiplex almost anything, so would likely be used with 3.X. We're prototyping implementations of this now at W3C to get some experience with it, and Paul Leach is threatening an implementation as well in his research server. The big issue here is not the mux protocol itself (though I'm sure you can find ways to improve it :-)). but as usual, the transition strategy (how to know when you can use the new, improved protocol). Depending on timing of the multiplexing protocol, one might either do a version 1.2 or go directly to a multiplexing protocol. HTTP 3.X complete redesign, once we really understand what we're doing with the web. Likely a binary protocol of some sort. A.K.A. HTTP-NG. I think this will take longer to do than we can wait for multiplexing, so think that the multiplexing intermediate step is worthwhile. - Jim
Received on Monday, 25 March 1996 11:11:50 UTC