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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:30:53 +0100
Message-ID: <5292FCAD.30200@cisco.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 11/24/13 8:22 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:

> But I don't want to hold up progress on HTTP/2.0 for everyone because
> of a very minority claim that legacy hardware performance is bad.

You're arguing a false premise.  That is- web sites that are looking at
aggregate costs in a competitive market compare against performance of
their peers.  This factors out legacy h/w.  I hesitate to go further
because the data here can lead to ambiguous interpretations, but it's a
sure bet that there will be classes of environments that have certain
performance characteristics that make HTTP/2 palatable, and others where
perhaps that tradeoff isn't worth it.  Wang et. al. at the University of
Washington  have recently done some excellent work on SPDY/3 that gives
us a taste for this.[1]

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 07:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:39 UTC