So long as we provide an appropriate mapping onto transports that either do or do not multiplex, I think we can take advantage of any improvements in transports. I think that we should be able to assume reliable and in-order guarantees are provided for any stream of a transport that we'd use, however... the use of any transport that does not offer those guarantees would add much complexity for dubious gain. -=R On Apr 5, 2012 6:29 AM, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:25 +0200, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: >> >> > stack. The real solution is to fix the transport (new UDP-based >> > protocol anyone?), but that's beyond the scope of this work. >> >> Although I agree a udp based proposal is unlikely to bear fruit, I don't >> see that it is a priori beyond the scope of the HTTP/2 work. I think our >> charter asks for proposals that reduce TCP connection count - that would >> certainly qualify :) WebRTC is doing something kind of similar with >> > > LOL :) > > >> sctp/dtls/udp layering, right? >> >> There are a huge amount of unknowns there, which is a terrific argument >> for rallying around spdy because it is well experimented with already >> and is known to solve some hard problems. But if someone were to invest >> in a prototype, a spec, and some test results of a udp system I would >> find that a much more interesting thing to consider than another >> proposal for some variation of spdy-lite. >> > > It's still vaporware so I'm not going to say much more than "we (Google) > know and we're looking into it." The publicly visible updates can be seen > here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=121577 && > http://code.google.com/searchframe#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/chrome/browser/net/network_stats.h > . > > I'd prefer we focus on SPDY over TCP for now, and we can discuss what SPDY > might look like over different transports in the future when we have a > concrete proposal and data, rather than diving into that rathole right now. > I'm personally a big fan of proposing things when you have data to back up > your claims. > > >> My weak understanding of dtls is that it has the potential to save >> another rtt over the tcp version :) >> >> -Patrick >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:33:05 UTC