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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:28:42 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4CFC0DFB-FF73-43F9-BAE9-D536072C3B50@mnot.net>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
We've agreed to how we're proceeding after extensive discussion previously. 

Changing that plan would require re-chartering, and while I hear a few people agreeing with you, I hear a lot more people who are committed to the path we're on. So, extra words from you at this point aren't going to do it; I need to hear broad consensus among people who implement and deploy HTTP to even consider this. 


On 16/07/2012, at 7:16 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <504E861E-C63B-466B-8E81-E6FC67DDDC7B@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham w
> rites:
> Mark,
> The goals you point to are however goals for a WG, and I think they
> are good goals for a WG, but they are not goals for a protocol.
> Goals for a protocol would sound more like:
> * "90% of all first requests fit in one packet on 1500 byte MTU"
> * "request-reponse model." / "peer-to-peer model"
> * "All protocol elements must be fixed size or length prefixed."
> * "Must have multiplexing and pipelining"
> * "Cryptographic protection is included/optional/mandatory"
> * "Has (no) out-of-protection routing envelope"
> * "Can (not) mix protected and unprotected requests on same connection"
> * "No-extra-RT upgrade from HTTP/1 to HTTP/2"
> * "Must demonstrate 10Gbit/sec load-balancer implementation on COTS PC"
> * "Client must offer unique device or user identifier"
> * "Not allow cookies or other server initiated tagging of client."
> * "Replace User-agent with something of finite size and preferably usable."
> and so on (examples only!)
> Picking what you call "a starting point" -- no matter which of the three
> you pick -- will put many of these decisions outside the reach of the WG.
> Poul-Henning
> PS: Your argument that it's better to have SPDY inside pissing out
> than outside pissing in, is just capitulation by a different name.
> -- 
> 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.

Mark Nottingham
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 09:29:10 UTC

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