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

Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:19:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXhiStXeR-Be4QiTz_hmz7JVC_cmrCkfxNtUXe=j+bjQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, ChanWilliam(陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>
If it can wait until tomorrow morning, that would be good.  I've got
fixes for the last issues from Alexey and Hasan inbound, but I'm not
in a position to do anything significant at home since my machine

I talked to Mark earlier and it might be that we miss the July 4
deadline, to allow folks a little more time to assimilate these edits.

(If this can wait another 12 hours, I can excise the associated stream
reset bug at the same time.)

On 2 July 2013 18:23, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 03:20:14 UTC

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