IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2 questions

"Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2081A873E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFfqicFjyIqZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D2AA1A8A27 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YdN7E-0006eQ-SR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:11:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:11:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YdN7E-0006eQ-SR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <robby.simpson@ge.com>) id 1YdN7C-0006dj-Jw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:11:46 +0000
Received: from mx0a-00176a03.pphosted.com ([67.231.149.52]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <robby.simpson@ge.com>) id 1YdN7B-0003Ov-KF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:11:46 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048274.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048274.ppops.net-00176a03. (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t31I9TIQ011918 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:22 -0400
Received: from alpmlip11.e2k.ad.ge.com (n165-156-000-000.static.ge.com [165.156.5.1] (may be forged)) by m0048274.ppops.net-00176a03. with ESMTP id 1tgm5k82pf-5 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:11:22 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO ALPMBHT01.e2k.ad.ge.com) ([3.159.19.194]) by alpmlip11.e2k.ad.ge.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 01 Apr 2015 13:53:38 -0400
Received: from CINURAPD07.e2k.ad.ge.com (3.159.212.119) by ALPMBHT01.e2k.ad.ge.com (3.159.19.194) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:15 -0400
Received: from CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com ([169.254.2.194]) by CINURAPD07.e2k.ad.ge.com ([169.254.9.227]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:15 -0400
From: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>
To: Maxthon Chan <xcvista@me.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: 2 questions
Thread-Index: AQHQa0a7ZV7fwyXLDkuCi2darHrsMp02CKKAgAFMGwCAAATOAIAAFPOAgAAD6QCAAAjjgIAAAleAgABNCwCAADVQgIAACIaAgABvZYA=
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:11:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D141ABE2.411C2%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
References: <emb9aea729-e991-4f83-bd83-960342d99b87@bodybag> <551B0C46.8040705@cs.tcd.ie> <40647.1427840473@critter.freebsd.dk> <551B2120.7020907@cs.tcd.ie> <40951.1427843221@critter.freebsd.dk> <551B2A8B.4040900@cs.tcd.ie> <F13154A2-D45D-4980-8DBE-A0C82E58B157@me.com> <1A9B335A-A082-4373-BAF9-12A15A7AF9FC@gmail.com> <95FADD9E-BA5A-4A85-B7F3-5D7FC4DB7A23@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <95FADD9E-BA5A-4A85-B7F3-5D7FC4DB7A23@me.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
x-originating-ip: [3.159.212.182]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <50CA5104CC61B847BFA71CBEDAFB34AF@mail.ad.ge.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-04-01_07:2015-04-01,2015-04-01,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1504010160
Received-SPF: none client-ip=67.231.149.52; envelope-from=robby.simpson@ge.com; helo=mx0a-00176a03.pphosted.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.977, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YdN7B-0003Ov-KF e9b5a202341a9dfdb3bb14f6504bd169
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D141ABE2.411C2%25Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29186
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 4/1/15, 3:32 AM, "Maxthon Chan" <xcvista@me.com> wrote:


>I understand there are still certain places that encryption itself is too
>expensive to use like microcontrollers, but that does not mean they
>cannot stick to existing plaintext HTTP/1.1

So HTTP/2 would be for all use cases *except* micros?  Seems to go against
the intent.  Further, HTTP/2 has many benefits over HTTP/1.1 for embedded
systems.

That said, the "expense" of encryption is not always the underlying issue,
even with embedded systems.  For that discussion, I'll refer to all of the
other threads on this topic.

>For those microcontrollers using HTTP/2 would actually introduce more
>state (aka memory use) and given the compatibility requirement of HTTP/2
>they would also have to include a minimal HTTP/1.1 support (aka code
>size) so ion;t think HTTP/2 would be appropriate for those applications
>anyway.

As someone who has implemented HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 for embedded systems, I
have to disagree.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email