Re: HTTP 2.0 in the clear and over TLS

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 30/07/2013 11:38 a.m., Fred Akalin wrote:
> Why would HTTP 2.0 be faster in the clear than over TLS?
>
For the same reasons HTTP in the clear is faster than HTTPS. Encryption 
overheads, cache offloading, proxy multiplexing amongst others.

Amos


>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Peter Lepeska <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     HTTP 2.0 in the clear will be faster than over TLS. It will be
>     interesting to see if Google will continue to trade speed for
>     privacy when the standard supports a faster option.
>
>     Peter
>
>
>     On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Sorry, I am inexact. Some people may have previously said
>         otherwise, but currently to my knowledge no one is vocally
>         opposing including a HTTP/2.0 in the clear mechanism in the
>         spec, and the current draft spec does provide such a mechanism.
>
>
>         On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:00 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             No one has said otherwise. Please see the section in the
>             spec where we provide a way to negotiate HTTP/2.0 in the
>             clear via HTTP Upgrade:
>             http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#discover-http.
>
>
>             On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:37 AM, <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 HTTP2 must work in the clear and over TLS. This is
>                 required because HTTP1.1 and HTTP2 must coexist to
>                 ease the migration to HTTP2, and to accelerate HTTP2
>                 deployments.
>
>                 Regards
>
>                 Emile
>
>                 *De :*Michael Sweet [mailto:[e-mail]]
>                 *Envoyé :* dimanche 28 juillet 2013 14:12
>                 *À :* Eliot Lear
>                 *Cc :* William Chan (陈 智昌) ; Zhong Yu; HTTP Working
>                 Group
>                 *Objet :* Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
>
>                 ... and don't forgot some of the more obscure usage of
>                 HTTP, such as HTTP over USB in the USB-IF's IPP USB
>                 Specification:
>
>                 http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs
>
>
>
>                 There isn't much point in using TLS over USB (and a
>                 lot of cost issues for that class of printer against
>                 it), and we need to continue to use the same USB end
>                 points/interfaces, so upgrade remains an important
>                 feature of HTTP/2.0 for me/Apple...
>
>
>
>
>                 Sent from my iPad
>
>
>                 On 2013-07-28, at 12:46 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]
>                 <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                     On 7/23/13 7:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
>                         FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the
>                         spec allow HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension. If
>                         you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no
>                         plans for my browser to support that, and I
>                         don't think Google servers will support it
>                         either, because we care strongly about the
>                         advantages of TLS-ALPN vs Upgrade.
>
>
>                     Not only that, I don't think we can reasonably
>                     call this HTTP 2.0 if we have no path to do it in
>                     the clear.
>
>                 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>                 Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>                 pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>                 a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>                 Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>                 This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>                 they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>                 If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>                 As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>                 Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>