S+M Vs. SPDY: Microsoft and Google Battle Over HTTP 2.0 180
MrSeb writes "HTTP, the protocol that underpins almost every inch of the world wide web, is about to make the jump from version 1.1 to 2.0 after some 13 years of stagnation. For a long time it looked like Google's experimental SPDY protocol would be the only viable option for the Internet Engineering Task Force to ratify as HTTP 2.0, but now out of left field comes a competing proposal from Microsoft. Lumbered with the truly awful name of HTTP Speed+Mobility, or HTTP S+M for short, Microsoft's vision of HTTP 2.0 is mostly very similar to SPDY, but with additional features that cater toward apps and mobile devices. 'The HTTP Speed+Mobility proposal starts from both the Google SPDY protocol and the work the industry has done around WebSockets,' says Jean Paoli from the Microsoft Interoperability team. Basically, the S+M proposal looks like it's less brute-force than SPDY: Where server push, encryption, and compression are all built into SPDY, Microsoft, citing low-powered devices and metered connections, wants them to be optional extensions. Judging by the speed at which the internet (and the internet of things) is developing, I think MS's extensible, flexible solution has its merits."
Re:Optional extensions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct me if I am wrong, but encryption prevents caching. That is why Facebook and Google used to encrypt only user/password authentication. Forcing every connection to have encryption would prevent all caching as well...
Re:Optional extensions? (Score:5, Interesting)
It prevents caching by proxies, but it works fine with regular client/server HTTP caching.
The first is a huge problem. Having a transparent caching proxy easily saves a medium sized company 20-40% bandwidth and increases the perceived speed for users.
Enforced SSL also decreases speed because of a need to encrypt on one end and decrypt on the other. Slow devices pay the heaviest penalty.
My first test of SPDY showed that it slowed down page load by a factor of 2, and consumed a heck of a lot more resources too. Yes, this was on a slow machine. But guess what? Slower machines haven't been banned from accessing the web, and I don't think they should be.
I am not against SSL, but against the use of it for the sake of using it. It's the lazy way out.
No, please let me have HTTP/1.0 and 1.1, also without SSL. Because sometimes the solution creates as many problems as it solves.
Hopefully Microsoft's suggestion is a bit more sensible. But I doubt it. They want controlled slow obsoletion, so customers can be forced to buy new versions of Windows Server, Office and what have you.