- From: ??? <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:19:15 -0800
- To: "Appanasamy, Palanivelan" <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com>
- Cc: "mnot@pobox.com" <mnot@pobox.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Are you asking about SPDY or HTTP/2? SPDY specific questions should go to spdy-dev@googlegroups.com. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Appanasamy, Palanivelan <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Few queries on spydy. > > 1.We see spdy implementations in webservers as in twitter, google and facebook. All of these are http1.1+spdy3.1. With 1.1 implementations, are there any limitations we r living with that won't be there with http2.0 spydy? Or is it just as good as 2.0 spdy. HTTP/1.1 is not "just as good" as SPDY / HTTP/2, otherwise people wouldn't bother with SPDY / HTTP/2. > > 2. Are there usecases for non-encrypted spydy or spydy on port 80? Is there a webserver today that supports this? There are use cases for non-encrypted SPDY / HTTP/2, but no browser today supports that, although IE has expressed interest. Chrome and Firefox have both stated that they do not plan to support it. I think there may be a webserver that supports it, but I don't know offhand. > > > Appreciate your responses. > > Thanks, > Palanivelan, > Verizon labs, Bangalore.
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:19:46 UTC