SPDY requires SSL and is even more complex than HTTP.

Really, the current protocol we've got (length prefixed protobufs) is just fine except for the lack of encryption/authentication. For that you need to do ECDH to establish a shared AES session key, and MAC each packet. Like I said, it's not entirely trivial which is why it's worth trying SSL too, but it's also not a massive effort.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:

On 03/21/2014 02:54 PM, Alex Kotenko wrote:

> > I wonder how complex it would be to implement HTTP-over-Bluetooth. Not
> > like I'm willing to do that now, but HTTP is well known and proven
> to be
> > quite good for tasks like this, so in theory it would be handy to have
> > such capacities in here.
>
> Thought of that as well. On the other hand, HTTP might be overkill and
> we inherit its potential downsides as well.
>
> It definitely is an overkill. Don't think we should do it now unless we
> will see later during implementation that we really have to.

Btw. we could also consider SPDY. I'm not sure about the advantages, but
its probably quicker and leaner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development