Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

So... why would someone who didn't want these things use HTTP/2 instead of
HTTP/1?

-=R


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> > <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>> The main one is that the receiver has to have enough memory to store
> the
> >>> dictionary.
> >>
> >> I think this boils down to the argument on the other thread. Do the
> >> gains for keeping state outweigh the costs? Note that given Roberto's
> >> delta compression proposal, the sender can disable compression
> >> entirely, so the receiver does not need to maintain state. Browsers
> >> probably would not do this, due to our desire to optimize for web
> >> browsing speed. For web services where you control the client, you
> >> indeed would be able to disable compression.
> >
> > IMO we need stateful compression to be absolutely optional to
> > implement.  (If we choose to go with stateful compression in the first
> > place.  I think we shouldn't.)
>
> I think we need to do a little more. I think we should define a "minimal
> implementation" and have a way for client and server to signal this. A
> minimal implementation would not be able to do any or some of these:
>  - compression
>  - server-initiated streams
>  - stream priority
>  - credentials
>  - all but a small set of headers.
>  - multiple concurrent streams
>
> Maybe we need a CAPABILITIES control frame that will allow client or
> server to communicate to the other what capabilities they don't have.
>
> A truly minimal client would be capable of one stream at a time - really
> down to HTTP/1.0 functionality with the new syntax.
>
> Would this allow Phillip to use HTTP/2 for minimalist web services?
>
> Yoav
>
>