3 ms·

This is a big deal, I think. Ten years from now we're going to look back and discover that Google quietly replaced HTTP without anybody complaining, or even not

by seldo 14y ago

This is a big deal, I think. Ten years from now we're going to look back and discover that Google quietly replaced HTTP without anybody complaining, or even noticing.

moonboots 14y ago
I agree it's a big deal, but I wouldn't say people aren't noticing[1][2][3] or complaining[4]. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-speed-mobility-01 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012AprJun/0498 [3] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/03/31/whats_next_for_http [4] http://librelist.com/browser//mongrel2/2011/8/17/opinions-about-spdy/#e67f0aaa71f4af3f0663195b99217f80
- seldo 14y ago
  I was thinking more in terms of the average-joe consumer, but then I guess the average-joe consumer never knew what HTTP was anyway.
  - Danieru 14y ago
    Sure they do, it is that thing in front of the hard to type portion of urls.
thepumpkin1979 14y ago
I think adoption is driven by real needs and we need SPDY as much as we needed HTML5.
kristofferR 14y ago
It won't replace HTTP 1.1, since billions of small sites without SSL certificates can't use it. It might replace HTTP 1.1 if SSL certificates becomes free, automaticly generated, installed and renewed. Otherwise most small websites (the majority of web sites on the net) without any real need for the security provided by encrypted communications (SSL) won't bother dealing with a ton of hassle (or costs) of SSL just for a minor speed improvement.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  Free SSL certificates already exist, accepted by all major browsers: https://www.startssl.com/ https://www.startssl.com/ . Does having to visit that site once a year to renew a certificate really pose a hardship?
  - eggnet 14y ago
    That, and having to have a dedicated ip address due to IE on XP's lack of SNI support.
    - JoshTriplett 14y ago
      IE on XP will never support SPDY, so just fall back to HTTP for IE on XP. :)
      - eggnet 14y ago
        But how do you do that? You'd have to have a non-https based landing page and then redirect to spdy based on user agent. If you actually care about SSL, the non-SSL landing page is an attack vector.
        JoshTriplett 14y ago
        You could serve up HSTS records via http, which IE on XP doesn't support either. That'll ensure that all of your repeat visitors use https directly. Also, many sites still serve up their unauthenticated homepages via http only, and such sites should have no problem checking for IE on XP and providing a link that'll work. Depending on the nature of your traffic and how it arrives (e.g. via integration with third-party sites via scripts you've written), you might also have the opportunity to provide the appropriate fallback links to users before they ever reach your site for the first time. And all of the above assumes you have enough IE-on-XP users to not just write them off entirely.

by seldo 14y ago

This is a big deal, I think. Ten years from now we're going to look back and discover that Google quietly replaced HTTP without anybody complaining, or even noticing.

moonboots 14y ago

I agree it's a big deal, but I wouldn't say people aren't noticing[1][2][3] or complaining[4]. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-speed-mobility-01 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012AprJun/0498 [3] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/03/31/whats_next_for_http [4] http://librelist.com/browser//mongrel2/2011/8/17/opinions-about-spdy/#e67f0aaa71f4af3f0663195b99217f80

seldo 14y ago
I was thinking more in terms of the average-joe consumer, but then I guess the average-joe consumer never knew what HTTP was anyway.
- Danieru 14y ago
  Sure they do, it is that thing in front of the hard to type portion of urls.

thepumpkin1979 14y ago

I think adoption is driven by real needs and we need SPDY as much as we needed HTML5.

kristofferR 14y ago

It won't replace HTTP 1.1, since billions of small sites without SSL certificates can't use it. It might replace HTTP 1.1 if SSL certificates becomes free, automaticly generated, installed and renewed. Otherwise most small websites (the majority of web sites on the net) without any real need for the security provided by encrypted communications (SSL) won't bother dealing with a ton of hassle (or costs) of SSL just for a minor speed improvement.

JoshTriplett 14y ago
Free SSL certificates already exist, accepted by all major browsers: https://www.startssl.com/ https://www.startssl.com/ . Does having to visit that site once a year to renew a certificate really pose a hardship?
- eggnet 14y ago
  That, and having to have a dedicated ip address due to IE on XP's lack of SNI support.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    IE on XP will never support SPDY, so just fall back to HTTP for IE on XP. :)
    - eggnet 14y ago
      But how do you do that? You'd have to have a non-https based landing page and then redirect to spdy based on user agent. If you actually care about SSL, the non-SSL landing page is an attack vector.
      - JoshTriplett 14y ago
        You could serve up HSTS records via http, which IE on XP doesn't support either. That'll ensure that all of your repeat visitors use https directly. Also, many sites still serve up their unauthenticated homepages via http only, and such sites should have no problem checking for IE on XP and providing a link that'll work. Depending on the nature of your traffic and how it arrives (e.g. via integration with third-party sites via scripts you've written), you might also have the opportunity to provide the appropriate fallback links to users before they ever reach your site for the first time. And all of the above assumes you have enough IE-on-XP users to not just write them off entirely.