Re: Straw-man for our next charter

In message <>, Mark Nottingham wri

>Assuming we do choose one, we'll also need to discuss the charter 
>itself. To facilitate that, I've pasted a straw-man of what such a 
>charter might look like below.

>It is expected that HTTP/2.0 will:
>* Substantially and measurably improve end-user perceived latency[...]

I miss something about general efficiency (ie: loosing the non
length-prefixed fields):

  * Be optimized for computers efficiency, rather than human readability.

DoS-resistance should be an explicit goal too:

  * Provide stronger DoS resistance than HTTP/1.1, without impacting user
    perceived performance.

And I think we should aim for message protection rather than
connection protection, in order to avoid the HTTP->HTTPS upgrade
needing a new connection, and to make life easier for HTTP routers:

  * Use message based cryptographic protection, rather than connection
    based cryptographic protection.

>Explicitly out-of-scope items include:
>* Specifying the use of alternate transport protocols. Note that it
>  is expected that the Working Group will define how the protocol is used
>  with the TLS protocol.

Given that HTTP/2.0 primarily will be an alternate transport protocol,
I find this bullet needs a rewrite:

  * Specifying transport protocols other than TCP and possibly TLS.

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 Wednesday, 25 July 2012 08:16:41 UTC