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

Yes, video streaming, depending on how it is done*, could benefit from some
of the features, especially prioritization...

*there are other protocols which are likely better suited to solving
video-specific problems.
-=R


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Hassnaa Moustafa <
hassnaamoustafa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am just joining this discussion thread and I have a comment on what was
> mentioned by William "precisely the following text - copied from William's
> message below":
>
> * 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
> *
>
>  Hassnaa: Is video streaming considered one of the services for which
> HTTP2.0 could present a gain? or the focus right now is on web-browsing for
> the minimal implementation.
>
> Regards,
> Hassnaa
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:
>
>> It might end up smaller than what you need for an HTTP/1 client. But that
>> also allows us to implement just one protocol on the server for both
>> full-capability and minimal clients. Similarly for full-capabilities client
>> working with minimal servers.
>>
>>  On Jan 25, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Email secured by Check Point
>>
>>
>>
>