- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:10:59 -0700
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 00:11:28 UTC
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Mike Belshe wrote: > > > I would propose that HTTP only concern itself with reliable transports. > A > > reliable transport provides both in-order delivery and guaranteed > delivery. > > UDP does not provide guaranteed delivery (even if you use the 64K hack > you > > mention to avoid the in-order issues), and therefore is not a transport > > worthy of discussion for HTTP/2.0 by itself. > > Yes ... I even wonder if HTTP itself should deal with the multiplexing or > if HTTP should remain a request/response communication with the sorting > out of multiple sub-streams handled by a lower layer. W/o a specification, > it is hard to be sure, but I think I'd implement two layers, even if > they arrive as a 'single layer' in the eventual spec. > That's exactly how SPDY is spec'd - the framing layer (section 2) with the binding for HTTP messages on top of it (section 3) Mike
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 00:11:28 UTC