- From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Date: 2012年4月05日 09:13:28 -0400
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1333631608.2072.13.camel@ds9>
On Thu, 2012年04月05日 at 10:25 +0200, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: > stack. The real solution is to fix the transport (new UDP-based > protocol anyone?), but that's beyond the scope of this work. Although I agree a udp based proposal is unlikely to bear fruit, I don't see that it is a priori beyond the scope of the HTTP/2 work. I think our charter asks for proposals that reduce TCP connection count - that would certainly qualify :) WebRTC is doing something kind of similar with sctp/dtls/udp layering, right? There are a huge amount of unknowns there, which is a terrific argument for rallying around spdy because it is well experimented with already and is known to solve some hard problems. But if someone were to invest in a prototype, a spec, and some test results of a udp system I would find that a much more interesting thing to consider than another proposal for some variation of spdy-lite. My weak understanding of dtls is that it has the potential to save another rtt over the tcp version :) -Patrick
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 13:14:23 UTC