Re[4]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest

we can already transfer many objects over a single connection with 
HTTP/1.1

SPDY without SSL would be more speedy than with it.

There may be only a couple R-Ts to get an SSL handshake, but sprinkle 
on a CRL / OCSP check and you're left eating dust.

So, let's just get this straight for the record.  SSL will not improve 
latency.  It will make it worse, and for many people (on 
already-high-latency links) a LOT worse.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Rajeev Bector" <rbector@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>;"Martin Thomson" 
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>;"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "Doug Beaver" <doug@fb.com>;"Willy Tarreau" 
<w@1wt.eu>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 18/07/2012 3:26:56 p.m.
Subject: Re: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest
>Arguably, the cost of 3 Rts is amortized over many many objects that 
>gets transferred over the session. That said, I am trying to imagine 
>how to do crypto on my Arduino :-).   
>
>
>From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
>Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:20:09 -0700
>To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>Cc: Doug Beaver <doug@fb.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>Subject: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> On 17 July 2012 19:35, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>  
>  So why are we okay with 10-20% more processing costs for everybody, 
>  but not
>  with 10-20% more bandwidth? What's different between processing 
>  costs and
>  bandwidth?
>  
  
  
  Personally, I thought that the first optimization was for latency,
  
 How do you optimise latency by adding 3 RTs in a SSL setup?
 
 
  
  with bandwidth as secondary and (obviously) consequential.  Trade-offs
  may have to be made.