- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:19:36 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABaLYCuUFmt_y9HpSGcenS0zGCp8mof6CYMOD6mq7jh=0KV73g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > On 31.07.2012 06:04, Mike Belshe wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com >> <mailto:masinter@adobe.com>> wrote: >> >> Your post is consistent with the assertion that there isn't >> agreement yet about what "faster than HTTP/1.1" means, or how to >> compare proposals for improvement. And neither measured worst case >> latency or real network traffic with buffer bloat, or situations >> that would detect the impact of HOL blocking. >> >> >> While SPDY leaves a tiny HOL issue, it fixes the massive one from >> HTTP/1.1, which can only load a couple of resources in parallel per >> domain (2 by spec, 6 by implementation best practices). The tradeoff >> turns out to be a boon in terms of reduced latency while also using >> fewer network resources. >> ... >> > > "By spec" in RFC 2616, but not in HTTPbis (this has been fixed a LONG time > ago!). > Alright :-) spec fine, but still a practical issue in all major browser implementations today. mike > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:20:04 UTC