- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:27:29 -0400
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Eliot, On May 28, 2014, at 11:42 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. There is no assumption. From the HTTPbis charter: The Working Group will produce a specification of a new expression of HTTP's current semantics in ordered, bi-directional streams. As with HTTP/1.x, the primary target transport is TCP, but it should be possible to use other transports. There is a lot of other text, but basically the charter says that HTTP/2.0 will provide the same semantics and functionality as HTTP/1.1, and allow for 1.1->2.0 and 2.0->1.1 gateways. >> 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. Because while we are sending those gigabytes to the printer to get dots on paper, it is important to monitor the status of the printer and job, and allow for job control in parallel with submission. Currently that means opening a separate connection, which consumes resources that are constrained. With HTTP/2 we can perform these status and control operations on the same connection. _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 17:27:56 UTC