RE: Agenda for 1 Dec. 2011 TAG call looks thin - call may be cancelled

I'd like a discussion of HTTP and SPDY if only to review Yves' summary ...

I remember coming away from the TAG F2F presentation at the F2F with the impression that SPDY was optimized for a relatively narrow set of use cases compared to the full breadth of current HTTP applications,  that SPDY would serve well in those cases (a high-performance 'upgrade' option for those servers that matched the use case for which it was designed), but that SPDY was also far from being a HTTP replacement.  I think if SPDY were *only* useful for the "top 100 sites on the internet", it would be still worth developing and bringing to standard.

This wasn't based on a technical analysis of SPDY and counter-examples, but rather that (as it seemed in the Q&A session after the presentation) that the analysis and optimization against the HTTP-NG failure cases hadn't really been done. 

To be clear, I think SPDY could succeed and be an important optimization of the Internet, and I'm all for further development, standardization, analysis and further work, I just don't imagine we are close to calling it HTTP 2.0. 

Now, maybe this is just my personal recollection? Did I miss something or mis-remember? The minutes of the discussion at the F2F are sparse.

Also, since a great deal of the HTTP-NG work was done by W3C before the project was abandoned, perhaps there might be some organizational memory that would help.... a review of "why HTTP-NG failed" would be helpful; my memory is a little fuzzy about it, although at the time, I was disappointed that the project was abandoned.


-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Lafon [] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:46 AM
To: Noah Mendelsohn
Cc:; Amy van der Hiel
Subject: Re: Agenda for 1 Dec. 2011 TAG call looks thin - call may be cancelled

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> I've been working on an agenda for this Thursday's TAG call, and the 
> few items on which progress has been made seem to involve Henry and 
> Jonathan, both of whom have sent regrets. Jonathan will also not be on 
> the call next week, and although he's been kind enough to encourage 
> discussion in his absence, I don't think that's best.
> From what I can tell, most of the actions relating to preparing 
> materials for
> 6 Dec are now overdue -- those were the items we had hoped to discuss 
> on Thurs.
> So, a request: if anyone is aware of anything that would be a good use 
> of time, please let me know by midday Wed. and I'll put out an agenda.
> Otherwise, we'll likely cancel this week.
> FWIW: some of the other things on which I noticed progess were:
> * Yves has done some work on HTTP and SPDY, but the corresponding 
> action remains open, so I infer it's not yet time or telcon 
> discussion. In any case, I'm not sure that one item merits the 
> overhead of a call, though I'll add it if we have a call for other reasons.

I kept it open so that other people listed in the action could say 'ok' or amend the text. It is fine to mark it as pending review now (which is what I'll do). As it is preparation material, there is no urgent need to discuss this in a telcon if there are no other items.

> * Jeni started a thread on ACTION-509, but e-mail discussion seems to 
> be productive, and in any case Henry's presence would be important.
> * Jonathan and Henry have made progress on product pages.
> So, if no high priority items show up soon, I'll encourage everyone to 
> use the time for doing work on their actions, and I'll start working 
> on the F2F planning. Thank you.
> Noah
> * Ashok has made progress on client-side state, but there are still 
> bugs, and besides we took the necessary resolution last week.

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.


Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:47:15 UTC