- From: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:25:02 +0800
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03/10/2017 11:19 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > thanks for that. > > Yes, the whole meta discussion about why / benefits etc can influence > adoption pressure, and decisions around whether we should support it > or block it. If I can run websockets over it, it will already be more useful than http/2 for me... -Andy > > Cheers > > Adrien > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> > Cc: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>; "quic@ietf.org" > <quic@ietf.org>; "HTTP working group mailing list" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 10/03/2017 4:12:48 PM > Subject: Re: HTTP/QUIC Diverging from HTTP/2 > >> On 10 March 2017 at 13:59, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >>> for the benefit of those of us who maybe aren't so familiar with >>> QUIC, are >>> there any good resources you can refer us to which deal with the >>> bigger >>> picture such as why even have QUIC? >> >> >> This probably isn't the place for that discussion. I would recommend >> reading the drafts. They aren't complete, but you will gain some >> appreciation for what is going on. Think about this in terms of >> replacing TCP, not HTTP. There are higher level things around, like >> this old presentation: >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1T9GtMz1CvPpZtmF8g-W7j9XHZBOCp9cu1fW0sMsmpoo >> > >
Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 03:25:37 UTC