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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:23:38 +0200
Message-ID: <0a36eecddce77117dca7a3d0cd5c0188.squirrel@arekh.ddns.net>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Le Mar 1 juillet 2014 08:55, Mark Nottingham a écrit :
Mark,

> I appreciate you're concerned about the CONTINUATION issue, but using it
> to derail other discussions isn't appropriate.

In the defence of PHK he seems to be the only one defending the http users
at large and not the subset present here

> Also, emotive language like "bogus misfeatures" and "blackmail" doesn't
> help make decisions; it's just a distraction. Please refrain.

Because
> In order to prevent the extension mechanism from failing (due to
> intermediaries whitelisting extensions and disallowing all others, or some
> other sort of brokenness)

is not emotive and a distraction?

Do you not understand still that websocket and other attempts to force
some classes of traffic through security equipments didn't fail because of
some technical default in those equipments, but because those equipments
were deployed to block those classes of traffic in the first place? And
that any attempt to force the issue in http2 will result in the same
outcome for this new protocol?

And BTW, in what way PHK's characterisation of
> A vendor that owned both an auto-updating client and popular website
> could enforce this.

is not perfectly accurate?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 09:24:25 UTC

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