W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: A proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:38:39 +1100
Cc: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2290CA25-050C-4D09-B3B0-0D4AC308E831@mnot.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
For someone who wanted to keep the discussion technical, PHK, youíre pretty consistent about veering into the political.

The bigger policy decisions are going to happen at the IETF-wide level, so ó again ó the IETF main list is more appropriate for this discussion.

Please keep it on-topic. 

Iím asking nicely.

Thanks,


On 18 Nov 2013, at 8:31 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <CAJ3HoZ2bFzofxyX16W_4rpw6z3mp-T3+n+TO-VtUeWGdwtKtOw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Robert Collins writes:
>> On 18 November 2013 21:43, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> 
>>> But I find it somewhat futile to move forward at the technical
>>> level, if we can't even agree if the US government banning HTTP/2
>>> should count as success or failure for the WG ?
>> 
>> You had me right up to here. Has the US government banned SSH ?
> 
> 99.99%+ of the people on the net does not use SSH.
> 
> If HTTP/2.0 came out and denied NSA 99% of their take, you can bet
> that something political would happen.
> 
> Most likely in the form of big vendors being leaned on.
> 
> (Why, for instance, do you think VIA could add AES to their CPU
> instruction sets, when Intel and AMD could not ?  It's not like
> it isn't a very obvious idea, is it ?)
> 
> -- 
> 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   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 09:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC