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

Re: Reg spydy implementations

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:19:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYibE0OtnjfAmmKVP6M=dHqi14urjqXDiLn8iBh-q1TBeA@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC