Re: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

On 16.07.2012 05:05, Roberto Peon wrote:
> Note that, if ever one will wish to implement server push or anything
> similar, there are ordering requirements that must be placed on at 
> least
> the content delivery of the requested resource and its associated 
> metadata.
> It is all cost/benefit tradeoffs, all the way down. :)

Aye, we left this out of the network-friendly draft -00 due to being 
undecided and push discussions being up in the air.

But after reading the other proposals (WebSockets RFC and Montenegro 
draft specifically) I have come up with a nice way within the 
network-friendly framing syntax to perform user sessions and server-push 
*without* baking either of those features into the transport frame 
syntax directly. This meets the gateway to HTTP/1 requirements fror 
immediate implementation rollouts and allows those features to be easily 
added as extensions once we have more migration away from HTTP/1.
  In a similar way to how we have the messaging design and layout in the 
current HTTPbis drafts, with Ranges, Auth and Caching as separate 
followup drafts/sections.


> -=R
> On Jul 15, 2012 3:31 AM, "Julian Reschke" wrote:
>> On 2012-07-15 12:19, tom wrote:
>>> Support on "My view is that SPDY layering should be separated and 
>>> the
>>> non-HTTP layer considered as an alternative transport for HTTP 
>>> similar
>>> to TCP, UDP, STCP, CoAP and HTCP which all seek to relay HTTP 
>>> messages.
>>> Only the HTTP specific syntax and framing improvements should be
>>> considered by the WG as input to HTTP/2 specifications."
>> > ...
>> +1
>>  BTW, we have been running HTTP over UDP (scheme as HTTP) 
>> successfully.
>>> ...
>> Out of curiosity: who is "we"?
>> Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 15 July 2012 22:32:00 UTC