- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:17:41 -0500
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, patrick mcmanus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
On 05/04/2012, at 11:55 AM, Mike Belshe wrote: > In general, I think we should stop talking about unknown transports or transports which we don't think are targets (and I put SCTP into this category). Designing for transports that don't exist is likely to make our implementations on the transports that do exist (TCP) watered down or worse. In other words, the least-common-denominator sucks.... Further, NOBODY is going to implement HTTP/2.0 on the unknown transport. So whatever we do design for these unknown transports will be untested and purely theoretical. Right. I can see accommodating the potential for these things by putting a bit of thought into how our specs are factored, but am *not* suggesting that we require an existence proof, or spend significant time assuring that they're possible. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:18:11 UTC