W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:15:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc=PUy6VDfUj0k9KNvCs5x_xN95q9MBLsXdedOsEmS3CA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Actually in this case I'm worried about latency more than the cost of
additional connections!
I don't want to spend the extra RTs necessary to set up additional (and not
that useful) SSL connections if it is avoidable.
Requiring that would make HTTP/2.0 significantly slower than HTTP/1 in many
cases where domain sharding has been used. :(
-=R


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2 July 2013 12:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, there are cases where the mechanism spec'd in SPDY today is
> suboptimal.
> > That seems like a poor reason to reject it, however, when the
> alternative is
> > guaranteed suboptimality.
>
> That's true, the coalescing that SPDY does won't work 100% of the
> time, but the times where it does work will make (most) things better.
>  If by better you mean fewer connections - and we're fairly sure that
> is actually better.
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 00:15:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC