- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:37:39 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 15/07/2012 10:05 a.m., HAYASHI, Tatsuya wrote: > Dear Willy, > > Response inline. > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >>>> On a personal taste, I find it fast too. 4 months to provide proposals >>>> to replace the 15-year old HTTP/1, and 4 others to review them is short >>>> in my opinion. Roy did not even have the time to publish the Waka spec >>>> which could have brought a lot of fuel to the discussion ! >>> +1. >>> I think that it is an important point. >>> Should we make what is replaced with HTTP1? >> I'm not sure what you mean. > Sorry. > "HTTP/2.0" are the marks of a big change for me. > Probably it is the same also for many Web programmers. > For example, big change excited like "Waka". > I had imagined "Version Number" such. > So, My "replaced" was putting it. > In this short time, I think that it is difficult. "Big change", but in what way? .... If the next protocol were to be called HTTP/1.2 we would be forced to: - use plain text lines limited toASCII charset ending in CRLF - use full-name headers in human readable format - support all the human-readable date formats, mime type formats, options names etc. - use strict one request message followed by one response body stateless sequence In short, we would be forced to NOT fix any of the real performance problems visible in HTTP/1. "2.0" is a BIG change for the incoming stream parsers and outgoing byte packers. Flow control, input validation, messaging and potential future extensions are also affected in a big way. With just binary framing change, no new features, no new headers, no new anything else but framing. Hopefully the result will be a BIG change towards simplicity. But only time will tell about that. AYJ
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2012 06:38:36 UTC