Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Microsoft Wants Faster Internet With "HTTP Speed+Mobility"

By - Source: Microsoft | B 17 comments

Microsoft is submitting its own solution for HTTP 2.0 called HTTP Speed+Mobility.

Microsoft plans to submit a proposal for a faster internet protocol to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) -- the standards body currently in charge of producing the second-generation Hypertext Transfer Protocol (aka HTTP 2.0) -- called HTTP Speed+Mobility. The IETF is currently meeting this week to discuss the future of HTTP which may also consider Google's next-generation solution called SPDY (pronounced speedy).

Microsoft revealed its plans on Sunday in a blog, reporting that HTTP Speed+Mobility will emphasize performance improvements and security while at the same time accounting for the important needs of mobile devices and applications. That means not only should browser-based surfing get faster, but mobile apps too, as they're how people access web services in addition -- sometimes in place of -- web browsers.

"Improving HTTP should also make mobile better, particularly to ensure great battery life and low network cost on constrained devices," reads the draft submitted to the IETF. "People and their apps should stay in control of network access. Finally, to achieve rapid adoption, HTTP 2.0 needs to retain as much compatibility as possible with the existing Web infrastructure. Done right, HTTP 2.0 can help people connect their devices and applications to the Internet fast, reliably, and securely over a number of diverse networks, with great battery life and low cost."

The draft refers back to Google's separate submission SPDY which actually replaces the HTTP protocol. It handles the same tasks, but does so 50-percent faster. Google's Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox already support SPDY, and several large websites -- including Google and Twitter -- dish out pages over SPDY where possible. Microsoft says its proposal builds on both the Google SPDY protocol, and the work the industry has done around the HTML5 WebSockets API.

"SPDY has done a great job raising awareness of web performance and taking a 'clean slate' approach to improving HTTP to make the Web faster," writes Microsoft’s Jean Paoli, General Manager of Interoperability Strategy . "The main departures from SPDY are to address the needs of mobile devices and applications."

Over on Google+, SPDY co-inventor Mike Belshe said that he welcomes Microsoft's IETF submission, saying that the company has a great crew of engineers and that their help in this problem space is "awesome" for the web.

"In their post, they imply that SPDY is not optimized for mobile, which is not true, he said. "SPDY is now over 3 years in the making with a lot of implementation knowledge and deployment expertise on both desktops and mobile. My current company, Twist, is a mobile apps company, and we're optimizing our mobile performance using SPDY. Given what other implementors have said about SPDY and mobile, I'd say its working pretty well. But it could always be better, of course."

"If Microsoft has some new ideas that prove to work, that's fantastic," he added. "The goal is not to take one vendor's implementation, but to aggregate the best concepts together and make the best protocol we can. I look forward to engaging more with Microsoft soon."

The IETF will likely take the best ideas out of all submissions and create a hybrid that's best for HTTP 2.0. There's a good chance we'll still type HTTP in our address bars for a while because that's what Web surfers have done for almost seventeen years.

Display 17 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    alidan , March 29, 2012 2:35 AM
    to accesss this webpage you need windows 9
  • 10 Hide
    therabiddeer , March 29, 2012 2:48 AM
    freggoAs much as I agree that the HTTP protocol needs updating I am not sure if Micro$oft is the right company to provide engineering. I mean let's face it, they are not exactly known for their secure applications.

    What are you talking about? Microsoft software is amazingly secure, 99% of issues come from user error/idiocy.
Other Comments
  • -6 Hide
    freggo , March 29, 2012 2:29 AM
    As much as I agree that the HTTP protocol needs updating I am not sure if Micro$oft is the right company to provide engineering. I mean let's face it, they are not exactly known for their secure applications.
  • 10 Hide
    alidan , March 29, 2012 2:35 AM
    to accesss this webpage you need windows 9
  • 10 Hide
    therabiddeer , March 29, 2012 2:48 AM
    freggoAs much as I agree that the HTTP protocol needs updating I am not sure if Micro$oft is the right company to provide engineering. I mean let's face it, they are not exactly known for their secure applications.

    What are you talking about? Microsoft software is amazingly secure, 99% of issues come from user error/idiocy.
  • -5 Hide
    jprahman , March 29, 2012 3:08 AM
    I really hope Microsoft doesn't get it's way. Any web developer out there can tell you so many horror stories involving Microsoft's past history with their interpretation of web standards. It would just be best for the committee to agree to use SPDY, which already has been battle tested by Google on their servers. I mean if Google is willing to use it on their servers, then it should be ready for just about any situation. Besides, we already have two browser implementations of SPDY in service, unlike Microsoft's proposed solution.
  • 9 Hide
    A Bad Day , March 29, 2012 3:23 AM
    Good for Microsoft.

    Now let's see if anyone else use the feature. An unused feature is a dead feature, kinda like Rambus's DDR memory. No CPU or GPU manufacturer is using it, even AMD isn't using the XDR2.
  • 3 Hide
    Manos , March 29, 2012 3:53 AM
    Hope they get together and talk things through asap in the name of net advancement. Im tired when the most internet-based news daily is the new piracy policy of Facebook and how much people dont care about Google penetrating their private data.

    freggoAs much as I agree that the HTTP protocol needs updating I am not sure if Micro$oft is the right company to provide engineering. I mean let's face it, they are not exactly known for their secure applications.


    And Google is? Are you writing from the early 90's? Or just from those that.. you know are just generally stuck with the opinions they are "raised" with?
  • -5 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , March 29, 2012 5:44 AM
    If Microsoft gets their way, no one will be able to access the Internet without upgrading (to) Windows.

    Then again, If Microsoft gets their way, the Internet might just turn into a Windows Vista disaster.

    Google isn't so bad, they pay people big bucks to find security flaws. Then again, wouldn't any company want the consumer to think positive about its mission?
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 29, 2012 10:55 AM
    This is years behind similar proposals from Google, but anyways... If Microsoft's proposal is approved, you can count on Internet Explorer to have a non-standard implementation of it that forces web developers to add some extra if browser=="IE" then... logic to their web applications.
  • 3 Hide
    osserc , March 29, 2012 1:24 PM
    Super, all the idiots and fanboys are out this morning.

    Even Google is happy that MS is participating in this discussion and is bringing ideas to the table, yet the trolls keep perpetuating their nonsense.
  • -1 Hide
    Soda-88 , March 29, 2012 1:52 PM
    lol@ppl thinking you won't be able to access internet without windows... n/c
  • -1 Hide
    jalek , March 29, 2012 2:21 PM
    All those blank pages that wouldn't render except in IE make a return.
    Not that it matters, speed improvements will be nothing once the MPAA gets their deep packet sniffer in place at taxpayer expense to inspect every bit of data to see if they can claim it.
  • 1 Hide
    hragarand , March 29, 2012 3:32 PM
    Wonder if MS applied the EMBER Model to this -

    1.(E) Does it make us extraordinary?
    2.(M) Does it matter to customers?
    3.(B) Does is break new ground?
    4.(E) Does it encourage evolvement?
    5.(R) Is it real?
  • 2 Hide
    Anomalyx , March 29, 2012 3:39 PM
    M$ has proven they don't know diddly squat about web standards. Our IT department is still feeling the burn from the mess IE6 caused. It was so horribly written, that web apps had to insert artificial bugs to get it to work with IE6. Because of that, they don't work in any other browser (or version of IE), and it has forced us to put off the rollout of IE8 for ages now, because vendors aren't updating their applications to work with a newer browser. It all could have been prevented if IE6 wasn't so incredibly buggy.
  • -1 Hide
    osserc , March 29, 2012 4:26 PM
    AnomalyxM$ has proven they don't know diddly squat about web standards. Our IT department is still feeling the burn from the mess IE6 caused. It was so horribly written, that web apps had to insert artificial bugs to get it to work with IE6. Because of that, they don't work in any other browser (or version of IE), and it has forced us to put off the rollout of IE8 for ages now, because vendors aren't updating their applications to work with a newer browser. It all could have been prevented if IE6 wasn't so incredibly buggy.



    Of course, one should always hold MS accountable for the failure of OTHER COMPANIES to adjust to newer browser versions. If they didn't know didly squat about web standards then the latest versions of IE would still suck, and that clearly isn't the case. IE9 rocks and 10 is allegedly even better, with parity on supporting the not even close to finalized HTML5 "standard".

    You can argue all day that IE6 sucked and you would most likely be right, but to say that MS doesn't know crap about web standards when their latest browsers are excellent and highly standard compliant is asinine.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 30, 2012 1:59 AM
    Typing HTTP in the address bar? Who still does this, and why? Most if not all browsers will attempt an address over http even if it is not typed. Heck, Chrome and Firefox don't even display it anymore. I can see typing it for https or ftp or some other protocol, but typing http in the address bar, nowadays, is just wasting time.
  • 0 Hide
    jasonkaler , March 30, 2012 9:42 AM
    A Bad DayGood for Microsoft.Now let's see if anyone else use the feature. An unused feature is a dead feature, kinda like Rambus's DDR memory. No CPU or GPU manufacturer is using it, even AMD isn't using the XDR2.

    Google managed to implement their protocol on two websites. Wow!
    MS has the ability to add it to their web server and have instant implementation on millions of sites.
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , April 1, 2012 4:10 PM
    ossercOf course, one should always hold MS accountable for the failure of OTHER COMPANIES to adjust to newer browser versions. If they didn't know didly squat about web standards then the latest versions of IE would still suck, and that clearly isn't the case. IE9 rocks and 10 is allegedly even better, with parity on supporting the not even close to finalized HTML5 "standard".You can argue all day that IE6 sucked and you would most likely be right, but to say that MS doesn't know crap about web standards when their latest browsers are excellent and highly standard compliant is asinine.


    IE9 drags just as slow as ie6, in fact ie6 beats it out on a side by side comparison.
    do you really want microsoft to be the sole designer when they have so many problems they don't do anything to fix what's broke or left with an open window policy that it takes thousands of people screaming at them to get them to fix it or would you rather have a company with a track record who pays for bugs hackers find in order to fix them before they become an issue even a few hundred scream about?
    just judge on microsofts piss poor track record and performance. i know new versions of chrome and firefox work on older microsoft operating systems that can't upgrade past ie6 or ie8. and yet microsoft can't fix the older IE's let alone make a new IE that works for 98 or xp. how long before an IE that doesn't work on vista i give microsoft 2 years to pull that stunt on vista users 5-7 more years on windows7 users. that is how microsoft track record works.