- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 06:27:52 +0000
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In message <CABaLYCsqLKV4WjOn4AZh3Cd3XErMGyK6an0gf-jitiM0Pf0HJw@mail.gmail.com> , 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 isn't. 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 years. 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