Actually, it’s being used repeatedly to defend one specific design option for HTTP/2: Strong privacy requirements. The benefits of this seem high. And the costs are arguably quite bearable given that anyone who can’t pay them has the free HTTP/1.1 option. On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, but the "they can just use 1.1" argument is being used consistently > to justify design choices for 2.0. That's just wrong. > On Nov 23, 2013 9:36 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > >> Unconvinced. Life is full of trade-offs. Enhancing HTTP/2's privacy story >> is not without costs. When balancing costs and benefits, it's reasonable to >> consider that the costs may be mitigated by the continuing availability of >> HTTP/1.1. It's not axiomatic that HTTP/2 has to be the single best choice >> in all situations, in order to be a success. >> On Nov 23, 2013 8:40 PM, "Matthew Kerwin" <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: >> >>> On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> (that can still use HTTP/1.1 if they want to!) >>>> >>>> >>> I have to chime in here. I keep seeing this point mentioned on the >>> list. This is not a valid counterpoint, or a justification for adding >>> something to HTTP/2, or an excuse for ignoring someone's use-case for HTTP. >>> If anybody chooses HTTP/1.1 over HTTP/2 for _any reason_ other than >>> laziness or stubborn change aversion, then HTTP/2 has failed in its primary >>> purpose. >>> >>> -- >>> Matthew Kerwin >>> http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ >>> >>
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 07:08:48 UTC