Feeds

Google's SPDY blamed for slowing HTTP 2.0 development

Working group contemplates packing it in and moving to HTTP 3.0

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

The HTTP 2.0 working group appears to be in crisis, with work on integrating Google's SPDY HTTP-boosting protocol blamed for taking the project off the rails.

The accusation comes from prominent FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp, whose post to the working group's mailing list calls for work on the protocol to be abandoned.

Kamp believes SPDY is to blame for the problems, as while the working group first thought adopting the protocol would mean “we get HTTP/2.0 almost for free” proper examination of Google's code has revealed “numerous hard problems that SPDY doesn't even get close to solving, and that we will need to make some simplifications in the evolved HTTP concept if we ever want to solve them.”

The Internet Engineering Task Force included SPDY in the draft HTTP 2.0 spec in December 2012, presumably because the cunning client-server interactions it offers represented a chance to improve web server performance. Such a supposition is not unreasonable as Google eats its own dogfood with SPDY: the ad-slinger's Chrome browser can use it and Google servers respond in kind when it is detected.

Kamp writes that, in his opinion, the working group has “wasted a lot of time and effort trying to goldplate over the warts and mistakes” in SPDY. The result, he argues, isn't worth completing, never mind releasing, because it won't properly address the issues that a next-generation HTTP standard should usefully do.

He therefore calls for the HTTP 2.0 process to be abandoned in favour of a newly-defined HTTP 3.0 project, because “Now even the WG chair publically admits that the result is a qualified fiasco and that we will have to replace it with something better 'sooner'.”

The chair Kamp refers to is Mark Nottingham, who, in this post calls for rapid action to get HTTP 2.0 ready. Evidence of him declaring the development process a fiasco is harder to come by, although the working group's mailing list is a little more fractious than others in your correspondent's experience.

The working group meets in New York City next week to review its progress. The meeting could be a fun one to observe! ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Same old iPad? NO. The new 'soft SIMs' are BIG NEWS
AppleSIM 'ware to allow quick switch of carriers
Brits: Google, can you scrape 60k pages from web, pleeease
Hey, c'mon Choc Factory, it's our 'right to be forgotten'
Of COURSE Stephen Elop's to blame for Nokia woes, says author
'Google did have some unique propositions for Nokia'
FCC, Google cast eye over millimetre wireless
The smaller the wave, the bigger 5G's chances of success
It's even GRIMMER up North after MEGA SKY BROADBAND OUTAGE
By 'eck! Eccles cake production thrown into jeopardy
Mobile coverage on trains really is pants
You thought it was just *insert your provider here*, but now we have numbers
Don't mess with Texas ('cos it's getting Google Fiber and you're not)
A bit late, but company says 1Gbps Austin network almost ready to compete with AT&T
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.