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

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:09:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdja9J_Vz0EWCsH5HWRe0iaE_-YpN-rokNFB6P1HghoiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <
> CAOdDvNr0PQFWm8qg7oz1tmAS3qaJK9O8fWkqoUJR9sqP+RwX1g@mail.gmail.com>,
> Patrick McManus
> writes:
>
> >> I keep hearing this argument over and over. Is the goal just to finish,
> no
> >> matter what?
> >
> >Of course not. But finishing is critically important.
>
> Absolutely, but the quality of the result is far more important
> than some arbitrary deadline.
>

The most important part is deployment.
This is true of transports and application-layer stuff.
.. and we know it works when folks implement things properly, because we
have experience in production with real, real-world use.
The risk of getting it terribly wrong is low given this implementation
experience.


>
> >An open standard is the output the process is judged by - and if it can't
> >produce that in a timely fashion then this forum has failed.
>
> It has also fails if the produced standard is not good enough.
>

Yes. I'll point out that failure method B does not imply failure method A,
or vice versa, however.


>
> >We have spent almost 2 1/2 years vetting and tweaking a pre-existing
> >technology in an open forum.
>
> That's certainly one way to look at it.
>
> My view is that the WG forged ahead on an urealistic schedule and
> the wrong prototype, and is still not finished pull weeds and still
> has basic issues to resolve.
>

This one makes me laugh: What was the "right" prototype?


>
> Here is a cautionary tale of bad standardisation:
>
>
> http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/crypto-review/documents/dualec_in_X982_and_sp800-90.pdf
>
> Issues #2, #3 and #4 (last pages) are clearly relevant to this WG.
>
> And if the editor is burned out, we should find another, rather than
> publish whatever he burned out over.


Not touching this with 10 ft cattle prod.
-=R


> --
> 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 Monday, 14 July 2014 22:10:01 UTC

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