I remembered when you called someone "bot". No, it did not help at all. We need not enumerate reactions. On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote: > >> In message <20120713225104.GK16256@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >> >> >Whatever will be retained as a basis for HTTP/2.0, this exercise is >> >useful and may incite other users to provide very valuable feedback. >> >> I think it is premature, because it obscures and prevents the much >> needed high-level design of HTTP/2.0. >> >> And that is exactly why I think the current approach and timeline >> is a road to nowhere fast. >> > > > > > > > >> >> The fact that we just saw Google say they would get behind any >> improvement, as long as it is SPDY pretty much dooms the HTTP/2.0 >> > > > For the record, Google did not say that. > > Such negative biases really don't help the discussion. > > Mike > > > > > >> effort right there and then: All that's on the table is minor >> rearrangements of the deckchairs, there is no opening for >> changing the course. >> >> And with that, over and out. >> >> > > >> -- >> 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 Friday, 13 July 2012 23:27:30 UTC