Re: SPDY Header Frames

In message <>
, Mike Belshe writes:

>> The fact that we just saw Google say they would get behind any
>> improvement, as long as it is SPDY pretty much dooms the HTTP/2.0
>For the record, Google did not say that.

Yes, Google did in fact say that, in Roberto Peon's email, which very
clearly and unmistakably didn't even acknowledge the existence of
any other proposal but SPDY.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the 500
pound gorilla is going to get what it wants, no matter what this
WG decides or not, as evidenced by the fact that they have rolled
out SPDY to the extent it is already.

And let me acknowledge that Google would be foolish if they just
dropped three years of work on SPDY, if nothing else it would
negatively impact their image as the web technology leader to be
told by some random dude in Denmark that their amazing protocol

But it doesn't change the fact that SPDY will not be the simple and
efficient protocol we can live with and build on for the next 20

HTTP2.0 should require less code to implement than HTTP/1.1, and
less pages of RFC to define.

Anything else is a fiasco.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 06:28:55 UTC