Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

In message <864EB174-B35C-4799-95BD-166CF2797108@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes:

>What I'm not willing to tolerate is the continuing degradation of the 
>discussion into point-scoring, personal attacks and assumptions of ill 
>intent by one's opposition. It has no place here.

I think we're coming up to a point where peoples capacity for
understanding the oppositions arguments may be impaired by who pays
their salary.

I am deeply sympathetic to both the original SPDY rationale and the
"TLS everywhere" battle-cry, if nothing else because of the fundamental
truth of the "end-to-end" argument.

But I think it is naiive and ill-adviced to think that our protocol
can sneak basic human rights in through the backdoor, against the
will, intent and duly enacted laws that say otherwise from legislatures
all over the world.

That can and will only lead to an armsrace, where our own tax
payments are used against our goals.

The $BIGWWW "political" agenda against MITM has shaped HTTP/2.0 to
be almost hostile to any kind of proxy, despite the fact that almost
everybody uses proxies to deliver their web content.

For instance the $BIGWWW focus on running over TLS means that other
high-performance applications, such as News, TV and porn gets
saddled with a small and horribly inefficient (2^n-1, really ?)
framesize.

I'm fully behind fighting MITM, but handicapping the protocol to
do so is like going to battle but refusing to get heathen blood
on your sword...

We should deliver tools, not policies.

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 Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:25:16 UTC