mbelshe

6 ms·

1.
by mbelshe 12y ago
Kinda makes you wish the IETF had adopted all-TLS-all-the-time in HTTP/2.0. We need HTTP/3.0 to be SSL all the time and nix the CAs so we can avoid MITM from VZ.
2.
by mbelshe 14y ago
As soon as Microsoft embeds SCTP in every Windows device, we might be able to start discussing this...
3.
by mbelshe 14y ago
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.
4.
by mbelshe 14y ago
BTW - TCP & SSL maintain connection level state too. This isn't anything new to SPDY and is transparent to the application above.
5.
by mbelshe 14y ago
The biggest difference between SPDY and Microsoft's proposal is that Microsoft's proposal is only theory at this point. The SPDY proposal has dozens of independent implementations behind it and 3 years of operational experience. I'm not tr
6.
by mbelshe 14y ago
Changing the transport requires patching the kernels of billions of installed devices. SCTP is not available on Windows, Mac, or any popular mobile device I know of.
7.
by mbelshe 14y ago
The Opera guys posted this today, and the author didn't understand the nature of stateful compression. SPDY is getting well over 85% compression in the real world across millions of installed users.
8.
by mbelshe 14y ago
If you want 100% support; just wait for the IETF to finish HTTP/2.0. It may not be the exact SPDY protocol, but it will most likely support a reasonable form of multiplexing, and I am confident all major browsers will implement it. But it
9.
by mbelshe 14y ago
We removed the alternate-protocol stuff only because we thought it needed more work. It is implemented in chrome, so you can try it, but we're still considering how we'll deal with it going forward.
10.
by mbelshe 15y ago
You can see this for yourself - run the test referenced in Rob's post above. IE9, right now, reports a 13-14x slowdown on that test with trivial changes.
11.
by mbelshe 15y ago
There were multiple issues. There was a straight up bug, which was fixed. But the perf delta remains.
12.
by mbelshe 15y ago
Sorry to surprise you, Maciej. As others on this thread have already have already surmised, we were not trying to change (or fork) SunSpider. We just wanted to demonstrate the impact of the smallest possible change when we make it a longe
13.
by mbelshe 15y ago
The great thing and the worst thing about benchmarks is that vendors optimize to them :-) IE9 claims speed, but the only benchmark it performs better than other browsers on is the SunSpider benchmark. If it is so fast, why does it only do
14.
by mbelshe 15y ago
That's basically what SPDY is. It has two halves, a framing layer (which is generic), and a definition of how to embed HTTP within that framing layer. In theory, you could use the framing layer for other purposes, but we designed it tailo
15.
by mbelshe 15y ago
No, this is pure conspiracy theory. :-) The decision to drop " http:// from the display was a UI decision and had nothing to do with the internals. The idea is that the " http:// is just user-confusion. Most users can't spell HTTP, muc
16.
by mbelshe 15y ago
Alright, but that is just theory. The reason you'd want a text protocol is so that humans could read it. Once you secure the protocol, you can't read it without a machine to help you.
17.
by mbelshe 15y ago
Heh - I didn't think a server side SCTP implementation was very interesting if you don't have clients to use it.
18.
by mbelshe 15y ago
Yes, its all open, and there are non-google SPDY servers out there already. My own site (you can probably find it) will speak SPDY for you. If you have any trouble, please hop on to the spdy-dev@google.com mailing list for help.
19.
by mbelshe 15y ago
Nobody questions that a secure protocol is not readable text :-) I fundamentally believe the protocol has to be server authenticated and encrypted always . We've seen breach after breach of user privacy and the desire for governments to c
20.
by mbelshe 15y ago
The reason we didn't like the Upgrade header is because it requires yet-another-round-trip in the protocol. Round trips are expensive, and getting worse both for desktops and mobile. (average RTT is ~114ms to Google, which has pretty good
21.
by mbelshe 15y ago
SCTP is not available on Windows by default, and you need administrative privileges to deploy it. I'm not trying to start an OS war debate, but this is a very practical problem. Mobile, oddly enough, may be the best route to bring both IPv
22.
by mbelshe 15y ago
SCTP is a good start for sure, and someday may make sense. The problem is a deployment one: it can't pass through NAT, making it off limits to most users today. As for solving problems from the transport, that is not true. I assume you're