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

Re: HTTP/2 Expression of luke-warm interest: Varnish

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:43:12 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57497.1342420992@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <4C9C45EE-57B6-49FE-A475-B46BE192A221@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>Much of your commentary seems to assume that we're now deciding what 
>HTTP/2.0 will be; in fact, we're choosing a starting point for further 
>work. 

No, my commentary is based on the experience that if you pick
a starting point, without first defining the problem(s) you are
trying to solve and the goal(s) you are trying to reach, then
that starting point is where you are going to end up. 

>You advocate (here and elsewhere) going back to the drawing board and 
>doing things from scratch.

No, I advocate starting out deciding what problems and goals HTTP/2.0
should address, what HTTP/1 did right and what it did wrong.

Only once we have a consensus about that, can we judge the
proposals fairly.

What the WG is engaged in right now is a popularity contest, it is
not engineering, and because of the inertia of popularity, it will
be impossible to change anything dramatically, no matter how wrong
it turns out to be.

That alone, in my mind, is reason to not chose SPDY as the starting
point:  The installed volume will deprive the WG of any real
influence.

Yes, I belive in rough consensus and all that, but I don't belive
you should always say yes to the first boy who invites you to the
dance.

>Finally, HTTP versioning is NOT like software versioning (where the 
>driver is often marketing).

I wish you good luck with keeping marketing and numerological
expectations away from the very head-line inviting "HTTP/2.0"
monicker.

lf I were you, I'd start to think about how I can explain HTTP/2.0
to journalists from the Daily Mail in a way that doesn't result in
"Boffins to close the web for upgrade" or "Web doesn't work says
head boffin" headlines.

I don't know if you have considered it, but it might be a much
better idea to standardize SPDY as "SPDY", and not roll out the
"HTTP/2.0" headline, until you have something real to show for it.

Given the total lack of interoperability between SPDY and HTTP/1,
that would also make a lot more technical sense.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 06:43:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 06:43:42 GMT