News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by CJefferson on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:21PM (#4346116)
One thing this doesn't seem to answer... Why bother when we already have SPDY?
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by gioele on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:18PM (#4346753)
Because SPDY has well known flaws (let's call them design choices) for example in caching. There have been many discussions in HN about these topics.

Also, because there is no such a thing as "SPDY" what you are referring to is "SPDY 2 as implemented by Google Chrome and almost fully documented by Google". SPDY is a work in progress. If you want a real deployment to be possible, you need to have at least a fully documented basic core that has been discussed openly, not just an implementation from a corporation subject to changes whenever internal pressures require it.

Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by sp332 on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:32PM (#4346826)
SPDY is an IETF draft, working toward a ratified standard. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by gioele on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @01:34AM (#4348869)
> SPDY is an IETF draft, working toward a ratified standard. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00

Now it is, before it was not. And that is exactly my point in my reply: you cannot take whatever you call "SPDY" at the moment (implementations + wiki pages) and call it "HTTP 2". You need to document it, propose it, discuss it openly, accept criticism, fixes and, if needed, radical changes. This is what is happening now in the HTTPbis working group and is a good thing, but it is not going to be a rubber-stamping process for SPDY as it is now, I hope.

Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by wmf on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:49PM (#4346257)
Renaming SPDY to HTTP/2.0 is on the table, but some people disagree with some of SPDY's design choices and are hoping to fix them.
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by sp332 on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:30PM (#4346810)
SPDY patches some of the problems in the more common use cases for HTTP for today's applications. It doesn't really change much of the spec, and it doesn't even pretend to address potential future use cases. Here's a recent criticism by the lead architect of Varnish https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4253538
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by gsnedders on Monday August 06, 2012 @06:16PM (#4347594)
On the other hand, SPDY never tried to address those issues: the aim was to create a more efficient over-the-wire transport layer for HTTP/1.1 semantics.
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by sp332 on Monday August 06, 2012 @07:47PM (#4347915)
I was answering this question https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4346116 Your point is exactly why we shouldn't settle for SPDY becoming HTTP 2.0.
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by Osiris on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:45PM (#4346235)
Isn't the idea to have a formal standard owned by a standards body? Currently SPDY has not been accepted by any standards body as a formal standard.

That's probably why HTTP/2.0 is going to be based on SPDY, an attempt to codify an emerging standard.

Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by mbelshe on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @06:50PM (#4352811)
Standardization is a critical step. It verifies that we use open IP which is available to everyone, provides a open forum for discussion, and archives the protocol in a way all vendors can use to resolve disputes about how we communicate.
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by aidenn0 on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:29PM (#4346161)
Or HTTP over SCTP
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by mbelshe on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @06:53PM (#4352821)
As soon as Microsoft embeds SCTP in every Windows device, we might be able to start discussing this...
Re:Trekking the Road from SPDY to HTTP/2 in Firefox by aidenn0 on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @07:27PM (#4352942)
SCTP can be implemented in a shared library and tunneled through UDP. That actually works better since otherwise NATs kill you