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

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

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:08:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbfqwn-gE2oKHdwG4pQ4VvRE36YWyesR0E0w8j-keH0fEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I would definitely have to +1 on this... My personal view of SPDY is that
it serves as an excellent place to at least start experimenting with
various options, testing ideas, getting our collective heads around what
types of things we could and should do before we define the actual solution
-- which may or may not look anything like SPDY in the end.

- James

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:

> [snip]
> 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 07:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:04 UTC