Kazymyr Volodymyr, Chernihiv National University of Technology (95 Shevchenka Str., 14027 Chernihiv, Ukraine)

Mokrohuz Andrii , Chernihiv National University of Technology (95 Shevchenka Str., 14027 Chernihiv, Ukraine)

Language: english


Urgency of the research. Developers have been developing their software during many years by using different programming languages, different platforms, approaches and technologies. Selection of an application level protocol is one of the issues, which developers had to overcome on their way to successful applications. In the paper, we are considering the most popular application level protocols and identifying which are the best protocols to work with, when developing a client server application.

Target setting. Large variety of application layer protocols makes it hard to analyse them and make some conclusions. Therefore, we need to identify the group of application layer protocols, which will help us to identify the protocols for our research. We decided to create the criteria list to distinguish the protocols.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. There are many application layer protocols, which are popular and can be widely used by software developers to create client-server application. There are many analysis of and researches have been carried out in the direction of application layer protocols.

Uninvestigated parts of general matters defining. Despite the fact that many researches have been carried out it is very hard to select appropriate application layer protocols to analyse, without distinguishing required protocols from a large set.

The research objective. In this paper, criteria to distinguish and compare application layer protocols was created. The result of this comparison should give us an idea, which protocols are better to use. It is also possible to identify which protocol more suitable for specific application types

The statement of basic materials. All these protocols have similar principle of work and can be used for communication between a client and a server. We were trying to compare similar to HTTP protocols, because HTTP is the most popular protocol in the internet. Three protocols have been compared. They are HTTP, CoAP and SPDY. All of them have advantages and disadvantages; everything depends on type of the application.

Conclusions. As a result, HTTP is the most popular protocol; therefore, we considered protocols, which are similar to HTTP. Identification criteria were created to identify protocols, which can be used instead of HTTP in some cases. There only two application level protocols passed identification criteria. They are CoAP and SPDY. To compare protocols between each other we created comparison criteria.

After comparison and analysis of previous researches, it is clear that CoAP and SPDY perform better than HTTP giving up to 50% performance increase. However, areas where CoAP can be applied are restricted. In addition, SPDY positioned himself as experimental protocol from Google. SPDY is not popular nowadays and developers prefer using HTTP.

Key words:

HTTP, CoAP, SPDY, mobile device, protocol


  1. Kazymyr, V., Mokrohuz, A. (2016). In HTTP(S) potential traffic overhead for mobile devices. International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 383–393.

  2. Global internet phenomena report [Online]. Available:

  3. Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and Frank B. (2014). The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), IETF RFC7252, June 2014.

  4. Ugrenovic, D. and Gardasevic, G. (2015). CoAP protocol for Web-based monitoring in IoT healthcare applications. Telecommunications Forum Telfor (TELFOR), 23rd, Belgrade, pp. 79–82.

  5. Erman, J., Gopalakrishnan, V., Jana, R. and Ramakrishnan, K.K. Towards a SPDY’ier Mobile Web? In IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2010–2023, Dec. 2015.

  6. Google, “SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster Web” [Online]. Available:

  7. Pengcheng Jiang; Fang Liu; Huan Wang; Chenyu Li. Characterizing HTTP Traffic of Mobile Internet Services in Provincial Network. In Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC), 2014 Sixth International Conference on, vol. 1, pp.78–81, 26-27 Aug. 2014.

  8. Roseti, C., Salam, A. A., Luglio, M. and Zampognaro, F. (2015). SPDY over satellite: Performance optimization through an end-to-end technology. Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), 2015 38th International Conference on, Prague, pp. 1–6.