W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re[2]: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:25:48 +0000
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: "Peter L" <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em7b4d3bb0-6bbe-4c4e-b1c4-7dfea3577837@BOMBED>
  
I agree as well, even though it will also cause me some pain.
  
We've been debugging binary / non-text / non-human-readable protocols 
for decades.  DNS and DHCP are 2 that spring immediately to mind.
  
Common network analysers shouldn't have much trouble decoding what has 
been proposed.
  
Adrien

------ Original Message ------
From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: "Peter L" <bizzbyster@gmail.com>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 1/04/2012 4:39:43 p.m.
Subject: Re: multiplexing -- don't do it
>On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:22:12PM +0200, Mike Belshe wrote:
>
>>
>>What is "transparency on the wire"?  You mean an ascii protocol that you
>>can read?  I don't think this is a very interesting goal, as most people
>>don't look at the wire.
>>
>
>
>I agree with you here Mike, despite being used to look at network captures
>all the day and testing proxies with "printf|netcat" at both ends. But we
>must admit that if developers need tools, they will develop their tools.
>Having an HTTP option for netcat would work well, or even having an 1.1-to-2.0
>and 2.0-to-1.1 message converter on stdin/stdout would do the trick. So I
>prefer to lose the ability to easily debug and have something efficient than
>the opposite. And it costs me a lot to say this :-)
>
>Willy
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 21:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT