[agentS]

That post both advocates for TLS-everywhere (which I support) and thinks it would be beneficial to drop HTTP Keep-Alive... Aren't you concerned about the latency hit? TCP has 1 RTT to setup, TLS has 1+ RTT to setup.

Also, TCP's congestion window grows over time; with your proposed model, you'd continuously open connections with tiny congestion windows, rather than a few connections with growing congestion windows.

I think all it'd take to change your mind is to load Facebook or Twitter with SPDY and Keep Alives turned off...

[jimktrains2]

I understand why Keep-Alive exists, but I think HTTP is just the wrong place. I don't believe that the round-trip latency shouldn't be an issue. It simply creates too much complexity for what is suppose to be a simple protocol.

> I think all it'd take to change your mind is to load Facebook or Twitter with SPDY and Keep Alives turned off...

I also believe that those sites are loading way too many resources. I'm also not against SPDY, but I don't think it should be HTTP. If someone wants to use SPDY, then so be it.

EDIT: Actually, I just loaded Twitter and Facebook with HTTP 1.0 (No Keep Alive). It was a bit slower, on the order of a handful of seconds, but nothing that I would consider terrible. These are also some of the heaviest sites a browser is going to load.