- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Connections) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:50:50 +0000
- To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "draft-montenegro-httpbis-h2ot@tools.ietf.org" <draft-montenegro-httpbis-h2ot@tools.ietf.org>
On 7/13/16, 3:16 PM, "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> wrote: >>On the profile section, are there particular aspects to h2 that are >> not particularly well-suited to implementation in constrained devices? >> Is there anything that implementing h2 has suggested (that maybe >> hasn't already been suggested to this working group? > >Robby may have further thoughts about this... In my experience, I've found h2 to be suited for constrained devices and hence the reason for an I-D advocating such a position. My only additional suggestions are likely not useful at this point as they would break the current spec (and some I've mentioned before): - Making the static table truly alphabetical - Adding default values for items in the static table (many do not have default values) - In addition to preset SETTINGS profiles, allowing the piggybacking of SETTINGS ACKs with SETTINGS - Then there are the traditional issues that many protocols do not address: operation under extreme battery limitations and multicasting of operations (requests) In short, I think h2 is well-suited for IoT but not yet on many radars. I'm hoping with this I-D and suggestions you all may have, we can change that. HTH, Robby
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 20:51:22 UTC