Re: I revised the pro/contra document

What I hear is:
A: here's why encryption is a pro for http2
B: here's why encryption is a con for http2
A: well you can use http1, so encryption is not a con for http2.

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Tim Bray <> 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" <> wrote:
>> On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <> 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

Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 19:28:17 UTC