- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:51:31 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <0C615921-7EE0-4E53-93F9-8B406D1561A1@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:
>Thank you. My *personal* responses below.
Appreciated.
I have two problems with the proposed project: The objective and the
timescale.
The timescale is just rubbish, it's not going to happen and we know it.
Pretending otherwise just makes everybody look like ceremonial fools.
But worse: the objetive is almost guaranteed to become a failure,
unless managed very ruthlessly.
If there ever were a protocol subject to Second Systems Syndrome,
it would be HTTP/2.0. Everybody and his web-programmer is going
to have opinions and we'll never get through their "input" in finite
time.
Print out RFC2616 and the HTTP/1.1bis, put them next to each other
and imagine what the next pile will be like.
Then do the same with the relevant IPv4 and IPv6 RFC's.
Then think.
Being old enough to remember the beneficial reign of Jon Postel, I
want to attack this problem an entirely different way, and use a
criteria which historically have been much more predictive of
protocol success.
My suggestion:
Make a public call for HTTP/2.0 protocol proposals.
Rules:
1. Each proposal SHALL be described in a single ID.
2. That ID SHALL be 29 pages or less.
3. The ID SHALL be an RFC-ready description of the protocol.
4. Deadline is 2012-06-01 00:00:00 UTC
5. We decide what to do next after the deadline.
Unless we get at good proposal that way, HTTP/2.0 is not worth our time.
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, 25 January 2012 08:52:06 UTC