- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:06:59 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Mark,
just one question to clarify one point below :
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:53:08AM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Some people seem to be arguing for multiple serialisations of HTTP from the
> start. Since the value of a standard is largely in interop and market forces,
> I'd strongly suggest that we not assume this until we have proven and agreed
> to it being necessary.
>
> I.e., just because SPDY (or S+M, or any other proposal) isn't good as-is
> right now does not automatically mean that we need two (or more)
> serialisations. We need to discuss our requirements and the proposals that
> emerge, so we can choose an appropriate path forward forward. If we end up in
> a corner where we can't serve all of our requirements from one, *then* we can
> open this box.
When you say "serialization", you seem to imply the on-wire format, while
for me (and possibly for others) serialization is what the stream looks
like. Right now HTTP/1.1 is serialized over multiple streaming protocols
(TCPv4/v6, SSL/TLS over these ones, unix sockets), with the {clear,SSL/TLS}
over TCP* combinations being more common than anything else and the standard
ones. Could you please clarify this point so that there is no ambiguity ?
Willy
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 10:07:26 UTC