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

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

From: Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:55:46 +1000
Message-ID: <CAG47hGbxfT0qkyfWq_kQurteyufih6G75FMjGzJ4T+K1Ro5p1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
+1

I'm just part of the long tail of http implementers. I don't
represent any large installed base, I've just written a few
http servers and clients because it's easy. One of the
reasons for the success of http/1.x is because you can
knock out a working server in a day.

All the proposals here seem very far from that. "Major
Web Companies lock down the web" seems more apt
as an inflammatory headline.. but perhaps the easy
problems have been solved easily, and only the hard
ones are left, and a two-speed web is the right way to go?

But it would be a shame to provide no cleaner simple http.

So +1 for defining the goals.

Grahame


On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> 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.
>



--
-----
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au


-- 
-----
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 06:56:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 06:56:22 GMT