Making the web faster with HTTP 2.0

Grigorik, Ilya

doi:10.1145/2534706.2534721

Cited by 35 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of them have been designed to address applications requiring instant messaging (IM) and online presence detection such as XMPP and SIP [3]. A few of them have been designed to address web applications requiring communicating over the Internet such as RESTful client/server protocols HTTP and CoAP [7], [10]. This clearly shows that the future of the IoT lies on several messaging protocols and any one protocol cannot deal with all possible IoT use cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP

Naik

2017

2017 IEEE International Systems Engineering Symposium (ISSE)

473

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard and real-time communication technology is an unalloyed inevitability for the development of Internet of Things (IoT) applications. However, the selection of a standard and effective messaging protocol is a challenging and daunting task for any organisation because it depends on the nature of the IoT system and its messaging requirements. Copious messaging protocols have been developed and employed by various organisations based on their requirements in the last two decades. Though, none of them is able to support all messaging requirements of all types of IoT systems. Messaging protocol is an ongoing dilemma for the IoT industry; consequently, it is important to understand the pros and cons of the widely accepted and emerging messaging protocols for IoT systems to determine their best-fit scenarios. Therefore, this paper presents an evaluation of the four established messaging protocols MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP for IoT systems. Firstly, it presents the broad comparison among these messaging protocols to introduce their characteristics comparatively. Afterwards, it performs a further in-depth and relative analysis based on some interrelated criteria to gain insight into their strengths and limitations. Thus, based on this detailed evaluation, the user can decide their appropriate usage in various IoT systems according to their requirements and suitability.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP

Naik

2017

2017 IEEE International Systems Engineering Symposium (ISSE)

473

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such efforts include Microsoft's Speed+Mobility [27] and HTML5 Websockets; most prominent, however, is Google's SPDY [3]. This has already begun to see deployment by prominent organisations such as Google, Twitter, Akamai and Facebook, whilst also being adopted as the base for HTTP/2.0 [13] by the HTTPbis Working Group. Despite this, we still possess a limited understaning of its behaviour, overheads and performance: does it offer a fundamental improvement or just further tweaking?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can SPDY really make the web faster?

Elkhatib

Tyson

Welzl

2014

2014 IFIP Networking Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-HTTP is a successful Internet technology on top of which a lot of the web resides. However, limitations with its current specification have encouraged some to look for the next generation of HTTP. In SPDY, Google has come up with such a proposal that has growing community acceptance, especially after being adopted by the IETF HTTPbis-WG as the basis for HTTP/2.0. SPDY has the potential to greatly improve web experience with little deployment overhead, but we still lack an understanding of its true potential in different environments. This paper offers a comprehensive evaluation of SPDY's performance using extensive experiments. We identify the impact of network characteristics and website infrastructure on SPDY's potential page loading benefits, finding that these factors are decisive for an optimal SPDY deployment strategy. Through exploring such key aspects that affect SPDY, and accordingly HTTP/2.0, we feed into the wider debate regarding the impact of future protocols.

show abstract

“…The binary framing layer in SPDY "dictates how the HTTP messages are encapsulated and transferred between the client and server" [22]. HTTP/2 has kept the same semantics, such as verbs and headers of HTTP 1.x.…”

Section: ) Binary Framing Layermentioning

confidence: 99%

How the Web was Won: Keeping the computer networking curriculum current with HTTP/2

Allison

Bakri

2015

2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Internet and the Web continue to grow in their pervasiveness and as new functionality and behavior emerge it is a challenge to keep the computer networking curriculum up to date. There are many excellent networking textbooks available but they cannot always keep pace with the rate of change. Recent developments in HTTP are a good example of this situation. Since around 2012 many of the web transactions between popular browsers and major web sites have been using a protocol called SPDY, which operates significantly differently from HTTP version 1.1 -the version covered in networking textbooks. SPDY has been largely adopted into the final standard of HTTP version 2. This paper seeks to fill the gap between current textbooks and the versions of HTTP now in use. It gives an overview of HTTP evolution from a technical perspective before suggesting materials and approaches that can be used as learning resources for the topic and how conceptual understanding can be reinforced through hands-on activities which use browsers' native network monitoring capabilities and other readily available tools.

show abstract

Making the web faster with HTTP 2.0

Abstract: HTTP continues to evolve.

Cited by 35 publications

References 1 publication

Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP

Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP

Can SPDY really make the web faster?

How the Web was Won: Keeping the computer networking curriculum current with HTTP/2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About