- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:49:14 +0200
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Mike, On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Mike Belshe wrote: > You're welcome to ask the browser implementors, but a new protocol > namespace is really a non-starter. We can't kick protocol versioning out > to the users for sorting out. > > From a protocol specification perspective, SPDY does not mandate SSL. > > From a browser perspective, I don't think the browsers are going to be keen > on having multiple, experimental HTTP/2.0 or SPDY specs implemented > concurrently. It's just a coding mess. This is exactly what they've been doing and both Chrome and Mozilla have SPDY right now. I'm not talking about having *multiple* experimental specs, just one stable standard and one experimental from which the next standard will be built. This is exactly what is happening right now, and you know too well that it will not stop here ! > So we probably have to pick just one implementation per piece of software. > As for what people implement, they should try the variants they think make > sense, and then come back to the group with information about what they > learned. Agreed. Cheers, Willy
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 14:49:45 UTC