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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:27:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqET2L3cLELt9NyRZ0Dck7AZ6WzuG2NvVee_17oYNPJCqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
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 <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 19:28:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC