W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

options or protocols?

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:25:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7D6506.5000802@cisco.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 4/4/12 2:03 AM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> The original argument was one about whether it's worth-while
> specifying features that are mandatory to implement, but optional to use.
> This pipelining thing was given as an example.

Good point.  I raised this in the WG session in Paris and I'll say it
again.  We[*] have an opportunity to consider peeling off different
portions of use cases and applying different solutions to them.  That
leads to specific optimizations, which is a good thing, and avoids or
reduces the options game.  The question for me is whether we can find
the right buckets, as it were.  There is one very large bucket, which is
non-browser use.

Going against all of this is the argument that use of new ports is a
non-starter, in part due to firewall administrator concerns.  I tend to
discount this argument – slightly.  That is- if the use has a good
enough draw, firewall administrators would, I think on the whole, come
around.  More-so when the alternative is losing visibility due to
everything being encrypted in payload.


[*] Who is this “we”, anyway?  That in itself is worthy of discussion.
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 09:25:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC