W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)

From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:15:19 +0300
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B5F8AB8E-6AE0-47A8-9563-471827297D9A@gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

On May 26, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be faster to go straight after the real goal, an
> protocol which CAN replace HTTP/1.1 in all scenarios and be
> an improvement in ALL scenarios ?


I think that would be a foolís errand. If SPDY has shown us anything, it is that HTTP/1.1 was not optimized for the web(*).  Neither SPDY nor HTTP/2 provide much advantage to the numerous other uses that have cropped up for HTTP: file transfer, web services, streaming media.

In the old days we had different protocols for different use cases. We had FTP and SSH and various protocols for RPC. Placing all our networking needs over HTTP was driven by the ubiquitous availability of HTTP stacks, and the need to circumvent firewalls. I donít believe a single protocol can be optimal in all scenarios. So I believe we should work on the one where the pain is most obvious - the web - and avoid trying to solve everybody elseís problem. 

If HTTP/1.1 is not optimal for downloading 4 GB OS updates, let them create their own successor to HTTP/1.1, or use FTP, or use HTTP/2 even though itís not optimal, just like they do today. You canít optimize for everything at once.


(*) Iím using ďwebĒ here in the narrow sense that involves a user and a browser, not an application that uses a web service to guess my location and get a weather report in JSON so it can display a picture of some flowers in the rain as a background for my phone.
Received on Monday, 26 May 2014 07:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC