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

Re: Coalescing #490

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:19:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNonD85N4uKO5bnc=ZgNTAOnFDtStR9w6eYUAA+jBoXzcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
pros
 * it plays nicely with legacy sharding. (i.e. it de-shards for http/2
while leaving that hack in place for parallel-challenged protocols like
http/1). without something like this you can't have one set of markup.




On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In the issue we have for dealing with renegotiation (#363) there have
> been a couple of related items that have come up.  One of these is
> connection coalescing.
>
> I've raised #490, which tracks whether we want this feature.  I'm sure
> that we can come up with reasons both for and against the feature.
>
> Here's what I have been able to come up with briefly:
>
> Pros
> * it's much faster to reuse a connection
> * SPDY deployments have been successfully doing this for a while
> * it's nicer on the network to have fewer connections
> * it allows for cross-origin push (with caveats)
>
> Cons
> * it's harder to reason about from a security perspective
> * it messes with client authentication
> * RFC 6066 says we shouldn't
> * it provides another advantage to large players
>
> Feel free to stack your arguments on either side in case I've missed
> anything.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 03:19:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC