- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:16:02 -0800
- To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 08:16:32 UTC
One of the reasons why http/1.1 is what people use on port 80 is because that is all which reliably traverses it. Deployment of http2.0 on port 80, unencrypted, across the internet would be a reliability and support nightmare. The spec could attempt to mandate it, but I don't see that actually changing anything about how they would be forced to deploy it over the internet. That would be a poor idea. -=R On Nov 13, 2013 8:17 PM, "Bruce Perens" <bruce@perens.com> wrote: > On 11/13/2013 09:58 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > > > There’s some notion that browsers might support HTTP/2 for http:// URIs when it’s *not* the “general/open” Internet; it sounds like your use case might fall into this bucket. > > > I'd be more comfortable with MUST than might. Making http an optional > feature will guarantee that we are forced off of the mainstream once > version 1.1 dies, in perhaps 10 years, and will have to use either open > source or specially-crafted proprietary software at that time. Much as I > love Open Source, I'm not sure we should be in the position of forcing > people to use it. > > Thanks > > Bruce >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 08:16:32 UTC