- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:01:02 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 24/01/2012 7:43 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:55:46PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > (...) >> This mailing list is the best approximation of the HTTP community; it has >> participation (or at least presence) from most implementations, including >> browsers, servers, intermediaries, CDNs, libraries, tools, etc. I firmly >> believe that as HTTP evolves, it needs to accommodate the entire community, >> not just the selected needs of a subset, so rather than creating a new WG or >> having a private collaboration, it should happen here. > Indeed. And I'll be particularly vigilant on the ability to build gateways > because I've already got several requests to implement SPDY into haproxy, > so once HTTP/2.0 (or whatever we call it) is out, I'm sure I won't be able > to resist to users' pressure. Anyway I'm more than happy to see this move > forwards. > > I think that starting from existing HTTP spec limitations and issues is > a safer way to bring something on the table in a reasonable delay than > starting with a big brainstorming about how we can revolutionize the > internet. One more reason to keep focused on current version's remaining > issues till the last minute ;-) Yes, I was just thinking that. IMHO item 1 on the agenda should be enumerating the problems we know of with HTTP/1.1 that need to be solved. To figure out if the SPDY proposal is a good step forward, overkill, or just a framing syntax change. And what alternatives or hybrid combinations might work better than either. AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 08:01:47 UTC