You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by Mike Cardwell <ap...@lists.grepular.com> on 2009/11/13 15:51:51 UTC
[users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
protocol?
http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
Technical Blog: https://secure.grepular.com/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by David Henderson <dh...@digital-pipe.com>.
After investigating this protocol, I agree that this would make a fine
addition to the worlds greatest web server!
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
> protocol?
>
> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by Brian Mearns <me...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Mike Cardwell
<ap...@lists.grepular.com> wrote:
> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
> protocol?
>
> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>
> --
> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
> Technical Blog: https://secure.grepular.com/blog/
[clip]
Speaking as someone not at all involved in development of any Apache
products, I'd say it seems awfully premature to really be thinking too
hard about that. It looks like an interesting protocol, but it's still
just a research project, right? Even once the protocol is "finalized"
at Google, we'll have to see how it faces up to the IETF: without a
recommendation on their part, I'd be very surprised if it goes
anywhere at all.
That said, if it does start going anywhere promising, it probably
would be a good thing to support in Apache. One day, HTTP may go the
way of the Gopher. Hey, maybe Google could provide some funding and/or
other partnership benefits to the Apache Foundation in order to speed
up adoption of their pet protocol.
-Brian
--
Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption:
Key Id: 0x3AA70848
Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by David Henderson <dh...@digital-pipe.com>.
Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, David Henderson
> <dh...@digital-pipe.com> wrote:
>
>> I would vote to make it a module over a patch due to Brian Mearns making a
>> good point about it possibly not moving beyond the IEFT. At least a modular
>> design can just be dropped from the operation of the server without having
>> to remove code from the core of the project (and network admins having
>> upgrade etc).
>>
>> From what has been stated in the whitepaper, it shows very good positives
>> with very few drawbacks. I can't believe it would be voted against by the
>> IEFT with the increases that have been stated. Plus, using the application
>> layer, the incorporation of the protocol can be made painlessly (to the end
>> user) by the browser and web server companies/developers.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Cardwell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
>>>> protocol?
>>>>
>>>> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Patches welcome! Or in this case, maybe a module.
>>>
>>>
> [clip]
>
>
> Well as one blogger pointed out
> (http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/11/spdy-google-wants-to-speed-up-the-web-by-ditching-http.ars),
> the IETF is usually pretty reluctant to do a "wholesale" replacement
> of widely used protocols. I'm sure if it showed any promise at all,
> Firefox and (obviously) Chrome will implement support quickly, Opera
> and Safari probably will too. IE might be pretty reluctant until push
> really comes to shove. Therefore, HTTP and SPDY would need to co-exist
> side by side at least for a while in order to avoid mass disruption of
> the web. Could SPDY be snuck in as a backwards compatible extension to
> HTTP? In otherwords, could HTTP-only browsers still download resources
> the same way, while still allowing SPDY-enabled browsers to take
> advantage of the protocol? That would greatly simplify the transition,
> but I'm not sure that it's possible, at least based on the current
> SPDY design.
>
> Another thing pointed out in the same article is that SPDY requires
> the use of SSL. The author there mostly focused on the increased load
> this puts on processors, but I think this is relatively minor. The
> more important issue, to me, is that every site will need to have an
> SSL certificate to support SPDY. For name based virtual hosts, that's
> a problem (until SNI catches on). Additionally, casual site owners
> like myself are not typically going to want to invest in a CA signed
> certificate. All in all, if the entire web is SSL-only, there's going
> to be a huge chunk of it running with "invalid" or "untrusted"
> certificates, which is going to a) be a hassle, and b) cause people to
> disregard such warnings and just get accustomed to visiting sites with
> bad certificates, even if it's something important like a bank or
> on-line shopping site.
>
> Anyway, I think there are some kinks to work out but I'm very
> interested to see where it goes.
>
> -Brian
>
>
I agree with everything stated. There are some issues that need to be
worked out. The SSL thing is a big one!
As far as SPDY and HTTP working together, I would almost envision the
browser informing the user if they are using HTTP or SPDY much like a
cell phone indicates if a person is in a 3G area. I'm also very
interested to see where this goes.
Dave
PS.
Sorry for the top post earlier gang!
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by Brian Mearns <me...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, David Henderson
<dh...@digital-pipe.com> wrote:
> I would vote to make it a module over a patch due to Brian Mearns making a
> good point about it possibly not moving beyond the IEFT. At least a modular
> design can just be dropped from the operation of the server without having
> to remove code from the core of the project (and network admins having
> upgrade etc).
>
> From what has been stated in the whitepaper, it shows very good positives
> with very few drawbacks. I can't believe it would be voted against by the
> IEFT with the increases that have been stated. Plus, using the application
> layer, the incorporation of the protocol can be made painlessly (to the end
> user) by the browser and web server companies/developers.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>> Mike Cardwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
>>> protocol?
>>>
>>> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>>>
>> Patches welcome! Or in this case, maybe a module.
>>
[clip]
Well as one blogger pointed out
(http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/11/spdy-google-wants-to-speed-up-the-web-by-ditching-http.ars),
the IETF is usually pretty reluctant to do a "wholesale" replacement
of widely used protocols. I'm sure if it showed any promise at all,
Firefox and (obviously) Chrome will implement support quickly, Opera
and Safari probably will too. IE might be pretty reluctant until push
really comes to shove. Therefore, HTTP and SPDY would need to co-exist
side by side at least for a while in order to avoid mass disruption of
the web. Could SPDY be snuck in as a backwards compatible extension to
HTTP? In otherwords, could HTTP-only browsers still download resources
the same way, while still allowing SPDY-enabled browsers to take
advantage of the protocol? That would greatly simplify the transition,
but I'm not sure that it's possible, at least based on the current
SPDY design.
Another thing pointed out in the same article is that SPDY requires
the use of SSL. The author there mostly focused on the increased load
this puts on processors, but I think this is relatively minor. The
more important issue, to me, is that every site will need to have an
SSL certificate to support SPDY. For name based virtual hosts, that's
a problem (until SNI catches on). Additionally, casual site owners
like myself are not typically going to want to invest in a CA signed
certificate. All in all, if the entire web is SSL-only, there's going
to be a huge chunk of it running with "invalid" or "untrusted"
certificates, which is going to a) be a hassle, and b) cause people to
disregard such warnings and just get accustomed to visiting sites with
bad certificates, even if it's something important like a bank or
on-line shopping site.
Anyway, I think there are some kinks to work out but I'm very
interested to see where it goes.
-Brian
--
Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption:
Key Id: 0x3AA70848
Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by David Henderson <dh...@digital-pipe.com>.
I would vote to make it a module over a patch due to Brian Mearns making
a good point about it possibly not moving beyond the IEFT. At least a
modular design can just be dropped from the operation of the server
without having to remove code from the core of the project (and network
admins having upgrade etc).
From what has been stated in the whitepaper, it shows very good
positives with very few drawbacks. I can't believe it would be voted
against by the IEFT with the increases that have been stated. Plus,
using the application layer, the incorporation of the protocol can be
made painlessly (to the end user) by the browser and web server
companies/developers.
Dave
Nick Kew wrote:
> Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
>> protocol?
>>
>> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>>
> Patches welcome! Or in this case, maybe a module.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] SPDY protocol
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Does Apache intend to add support for Googles recently announced SPDY
> protocol?
>
> http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>
Patches welcome! Or in this case, maybe a module.
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org