- From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:33:45 +0000
- To: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On 2 Dec 2016, at 03:43, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com> wrote: > > The basic problem is you can't deploy an h2 server that also does ws, > even in a not very efficient way. This seems like something failed > somewhere, and one way or another should be enabled. > > ^--- that's all the "convincing" I plan to do. I assume that what you mean here is you can’t deploy a H2 *only* server that also does WS: that is, a server with no HTTP/1.1 stack. To which I reply: so what? Last I looked no-one was deploying servers that can *only* do HTTP/2 except in very specific cases where they are deliberately seeing the HTTP/2 use-cases (the only two instances I know of are Apple’s new Push Notification Service and Amazon’s Alexa API, both of which are HTTP/2 only: presumably they considered and rejected the use of WS, and it didn’t stop them shipping their product). I don’t think anyone is planning to move to a HTTP/2-only server stack anytime soon, and we have a whole bunch of servers that have mature and battle-tested HTTP/1.1 stacks that aren’t going anywhere. So I’m not really convinced that there’s any demand for H2-only + WS. Of course, I might be wrong (I’m wrong a lot). Cory
Received on Friday, 2 December 2016 11:34:37 UTC