3 ms·

It doesn't matter if SPDY offers and technical improvements or not to our good, robust and lasting protcols HTTP. It's Google who is promoting it and all the "

It doesn't matter if SPDY offers and technical improvements or not to our good, robust and lasting protcols HTTP. It's Google who is promoting it and all the "hip" hackers will rally for its cause.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
That's a non sequitur - SPDY shows markedly improved performance over wired and 802.11 networks. The underlying problem discussed in the paper is down to TCP's interaction with cellular networks, and just happens to particularly punish SPDY somewhat more than HTTP. That's something that can be worked on and indeed there's a recommendation for improving it. I'd hope something like this would be included in HTTP/2.0, or at least in a subsequent revision.
- josteink 13y ago
  Since SPDY was created with DSL MTUs in mind[1] and optimized for them only (unlike plain HTTP which was transport neutral and lasted almost 20 years) I don't find it hard to believe that if you look anywhere outside Google's test-matrix you will see the benefits of SPDY tapering away almost instantly. [1] Basically, the test was: will one web-request (including all of Google's tracking headers) to google.com or any of its adwords/analytics beacons exceed one TCP packet and cause possible TCP reassembly-issues or not when using regular consumer-grade DSL MTUs?
  - username223 13y ago
    If they want to save a bit of bandwidth, how about removing this HTTP header? > P3P: CP="This is not a P3P policy! See http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151657 http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a... for more info." I can't believe they're still adding that...
znowi 13y ago
Their promotion style is rather interesting [1]. Implementers such as AGL are bypassing the WG, choosing to emit I-Ds and implementing and deploying because there is little to be gained from WG discussions. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does raise a question of whether what is good for Google is good for the Web as a whole [2]: If, a few years ago, Microsoft did the same thing I have no doubt what the public reaction would be. Sadly, a lot of people still consider Google "don't be evil" heroes of the Internet, despite everything we've seen and heard. The brand loyalty is quite impressive. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10598.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10598.ht... [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10616.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10616.ht...

It doesn't matter if SPDY offers and technical improvements or not to our good, robust and lasting protcols HTTP. It's Google who is promoting it and all the "hip" hackers will rally for its cause.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

That's a non sequitur - SPDY shows markedly improved performance over wired and 802.11 networks. The underlying problem discussed in the paper is down to TCP's interaction with cellular networks, and just happens to particularly punish SPDY somewhat more than HTTP. That's something that can be worked on and indeed there's a recommendation for improving it. I'd hope something like this would be included in HTTP/2.0, or at least in a subsequent revision.

josteink 13y ago
Since SPDY was created with DSL MTUs in mind[1] and optimized for them only (unlike plain HTTP which was transport neutral and lasted almost 20 years) I don't find it hard to believe that if you look anywhere outside Google's test-matrix you will see the benefits of SPDY tapering away almost instantly. [1] Basically, the test was: will one web-request (including all of Google's tracking headers) to google.com or any of its adwords/analytics beacons exceed one TCP packet and cause possible TCP reassembly-issues or not when using regular consumer-grade DSL MTUs?
- username223 13y ago
  If they want to save a bit of bandwidth, how about removing this HTTP header? > P3P: CP="This is not a P3P policy! See http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151657 http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a... for more info." I can't believe they're still adding that...

znowi 13y ago

Their promotion style is rather interesting [1]. Implementers such as AGL are bypassing the WG, choosing to emit I-Ds and implementing and deploying because there is little to be gained from WG discussions. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does raise a question of whether what is good for Google is good for the Web as a whole [2]: If, a few years ago, Microsoft did the same thing I have no doubt what the public reaction would be. Sadly, a lot of people still consider Google "don't be evil" heroes of the Internet, despite everything we've seen and heard. The brand loyalty is quite impressive. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10598.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10598.ht... [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10616.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10616.ht...