<story><title>Life beyond HTTP 1.1: Google’s SPDY</title><url>http://www.igvita.com/2011/04/07/life-beyond-http-11-googles-spdy/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>drdaeman</author><text>Nice, but a bit worrysome. Is such binary protocol a Good Thing?&lt;p&gt;Ancient people — even though they hadn&apos;t much CPU, memory and network resources — in all their wisdom made high-level protocols text-oriented. Sure, they didn&apos;t consider everything (so we&apos;re still haunted with evil spirits of, for example, UTF-7 and quoted-printable), but overall design was simple yet perfectly functional. And anyone could use just a telnet client to talk to HTTP (FTP, SMTP, etc) server. With SPDY you can&apos;t do such thing anymore, you need specialized software.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m all for something like &quot;Upgrade: SPDY&quot;/&quot;HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols&quot; (then binary framed message-oriented protocol goes into effect), but I somehow worried with binary-from-the-beginnig &quot;HTTP 2.0&quot;. Maybe I&apos;m just too conservative?&lt;p&gt;(Side question: If we want multiplexing streams so badly, why noone cares about SCTP? Is it flawed or inappropriate?)</text></comment>
<story><title>Life beyond HTTP 1.1: Google’s SPDY</title><url>http://www.igvita.com/2011/04/07/life-beyond-http-11-googles-spdy/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>henryprecheur</author><text>I don&apos;t like SPDY. It&apos;s trying to solve a transport problem at the application level. Plus it seems to be quite complex.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;d love to see Google promote a transport protocol like SCTP[1], and do HTTP over SCTP instead. If Google pushed SCTP a little bit, we might see it pop on Linux and Windows within a few years.&lt;p&gt;[1]:&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Pro...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>