Subject: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option

From: "Adrien de Croy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:21:06 +0000

Hi all again

another thing that has been bugging me is the number of comments about 
just using http/1.1 in such and such a use case where e.g. crypto is not 
desirable.

IMO this may work in the short term, but as more of the internet moves 
to http/2.0 which hopefully will solve some other security and 
performance issues with the current web, there will be increased 
pressure to turn off http/1.1 in corporate networks if only to minimise 
risk of continued exposure to those issues.

So I don't think relying on indefinite continued availability of 
http/1.1 versions or infrastructure is realistic - at least not in the 
extent to which it is currently deployed.

Adrien

---

From: Mike Belshe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:35:12 -0800

HTTP/1.0 is still supported...

Mike

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IMO this may work in the short term, but as more of the internet moves to
> http/2.0 which hopefully will solve some other security and performance
> issues with the current web, there will be increased pressure to turn off
> http/1.1 in corporate networks if only to minimise risk of continued
> exposure to those issues.
>
> So I don't think relying on indefinite continued availability of http/1.1
> versions or infrastructure is realistic - at least not in the extent to
> which it is currently deployed.
>
> Adrien
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:43:15 +0100

On 2013-11-18 16:35, Mike Belshe wrote:
> ...

But then, the wire format for 1.0 is essentially the same as for 1.1 
(except for keep-alive etc).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:21:46 -0800

This kind of escape hatch thinking is nonsense. Yes, 1.1 isn't going
anywhere anytime soon, but the goal shouldn't be creating a 2.0 that
intentionally only works for a subset of users.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi all again
>
> another thing that has been bugging me is the number of comments about just
> using http/1.1 in such and such a use case where e.g. crypto is not
> desirable.
>

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:37:12 -0800

That depends on what the objective function is here.

I believe that our objective function should be to make the users'
aggregate experience, including predictable 2nd order effects, a better one
on the whole.
The objective function of replacing the protocol for all users seems not as
interesting to me-- it is more of an action and focuses too little on
result.

-=R

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:21 AM, James M Snell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> just