- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:24:43 +0000
- To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>, Yoav Nir writ es: >Better, but requires a lot of work to deploy. This runs the risk of repeating >ng the IPv6 experience. We make it too different, and people will not want >to deploy it. Uhm no. The "IPv6 experience" is defining a new protocol which offers no tangible benefits for anybody, and comes with a lot of transistion headaches. That's where we are with the current HTTP/2.0 draft. If IPv6 had addressed one of the major needs, for instance multihoming without BGP (ie: Anycast), people would have jumped on it, but all the things people wanted threatned the big ISP monopolies, so those "unnecessary features" were killed due to "lack of consensus". If HTTP/2.0 offers something people actually want, they will swich, if all it offers is "more of the same, only slightly different" they will not. Solving the EU/Cookie privacy issue and saving bandwidth at the same time, would be a desirable feature. -- 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 Saturday, 13 July 2013 22:25:06 UTC