W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:02:12 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <95167.1404205332@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <6B92EBCF-4D52-4092-A4E8-56BFD5D1B25F@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes:

>Keep in mind that you're arguing on the side that's saying they won't 
>correctly implement an open standard if this feature is included 

1. There's no standard, there's a draft.

2. I've never promised to implement HTTP/2 at all.  I've said I'll do it
   if it proves worthwhile for me and my users.

3. If and when I implement HTTP/2, I'll have to balance the concerns of
   my users against being 100% compliant with bad ideas in the standard.

   For instance the current draft mandates DoS-vulnerabilities like this:

	  "Any number of CONTINUATION frames can be sent on an existing stream"

   Varnish is never going to "correctly implement" that, *ever*.

>BCP83 goes on to say that "good faith disagreement is a healthy part of 
>the consensus-driven process." You're welcome to disagree, but please do 
>so in good faith.

I participate in good faith:  Even before the first draft were
launched I pointed out the most severe of the shortcomings it still
suffers from, and from the very start I challenged the accelerated
time-schedule proposed which left a messed up prototype as the only
realistic candidate.

What seems obvious, is that other concerns, whatever they might be
and whoever might harbour them, are far more important than producing
a good protocol that will do its job well for a long time.

Yes, I still think that the HTTP2 draft should get Last Rites rather
than Last Call.

But failing that, I want see major bogosity, such as CONTINUATION
and all the priority crap moved to extensions, so they can be
negotiated, avoided and get a chance to prove their own worth
in open competition with other proposals.

Even more I'd like to see a simple sane change which would simplify
and shorten the protocol specification dramatically, increase the
performance significantly and overall increase the chances that
implementing HTTP/2 would be worth my or anybody elses time.

Poul-Henning

-- 
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 Tuesday, 1 July 2014 09:02:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC