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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 03:14:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCsvLCZPcDObg2A2yP8yG+aunsT1ZPyy_Ha9hGBCY15Heg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ChanWilliam(ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <CABaLYCsF_UTjxVwKbOJwW=
> 96JCj13Yjs+LLnZVBDc5Frum4cpg@mail.gmail.com>, Mike Belshe writes:
>
> >I actually did wrack my
> >brain searching for empirical methods to decide "when is the protocol
> >ready".  Would it be a certain number of votes?  implementations?  number
> >of bugs?  days without incident?
>
> I'd say that the sheer number of unmistakeable pronouncements about
> deliberately reduced functionality implementations is a good metric.
>
> We have two (or more ?) major-ish browsers nixing HTTP/1 upgrade.
>

protocol upgrade has always been optional at the client discretion.  this
is not new with http/2.


>
> We have a number of proxies (involved in about 30-50% of all HTTP1
> content delivery) nixing CONTINUATION and we have a lot of webmasters
> who have yet to see any evidence that adding HTTP/2 support would
> ever be worth their while.
>
>
 continuation is not a "throw the whole thing out" issue.



> And we have talk about HTTP/3.0 before HTTP/2.0 even got to Last Rites.
>

Well, this is circular.  I believe you were the person that started the
http/3 talk, because you didn't like http/2 from the beginning.

So now you're saying we should nix http/2, because you started talking
about http/3.

Mike






>
> Maybe the mistake was to rename SPDY ?
>
> If this draft had been named SPDY and with a stated goal of "giving
> a better user experience" at a subset of large web-properties at
> the expense of interoperability with HTTP/1, then it would be a
> very fine draft indeed, because most people could just ignore it and
> firewalls and content-filters could just block it and force
> fall-back to HTTP/1.0.
>
> But naming it HTTP/2.0 rightfully raises the expectations a LOT,
> and the talk about HTTP/3 already now makes it painfully obvious
> that those expectations are not even close to being been met.
>
> --
> 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 Wednesday, 2 July 2014 10:14:49 UTC

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