Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

+1
On Jul 2, 2013 5:48 PM, "Jeff Pinner" <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> partial ThreadJack:
>
> Can we get a draft-unicorn-httpbis-http2-01 published with all the changes
> that were merged over the past day? Don't want to burden but given we have
> 2 days until the -04 release I'm hoping the slightly faster iteration pace
> is ok.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>> I'm not as concerned about this, because I'm optimistically thinking more
>> long-term and envisioning a world where domain sharding hacks are a thing
>> of the past. Yeah, we're a long ways off still. But I'm still beating the
>> drums as long as I can to get people to deprecate those hacks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>