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

Re: Negotiating compression

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:52:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbfz4wirP3GYzyjRuOojOWV2SMPzsNE2MBY35zyY_LeLiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
So are we getting back to the "they can just keep using http/1.1" argument
or do I misunderstand your point?

On May 28, 2014 8:48 AM, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> There is the design space for "HTTP" and the design space for "HTTP/2".
We have made the assumption that they are both the same, and I have
repeatedly questioned that point.
>> The only real difference between IPP and a typical web page load is the
sheer volume of data - gigabytes for a raster printer versus megabytes for
a typical web page without video (you'll get gigabytes for HD video).
> Well that's right.  Tell me why you need the additional layer of framing
in these circumstances.
> Eliot
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 15:53:29 UTC

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