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

Re: HTTP/2 Expression of luke-warm interest: Varnish

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:16:51 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <58128.1342430211@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <504E861E-C63B-466B-8E81-E6FC67DDDC7B@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham w


The goals you point to are however goals for a WG, and I think they
are good goals for a WG, but they are not goals for a protocol.

Goals for a protocol would sound more like:

* "90% of all first requests fit in one packet on 1500 byte MTU"
* "request-reponse model." / "peer-to-peer model"
* "All protocol elements must be fixed size or length prefixed."
* "Must have multiplexing and pipelining"
* "Cryptographic protection is included/optional/mandatory"
* "Has (no) out-of-protection routing envelope"
* "Can (not) mix protected and unprotected requests on same connection"
* "No-extra-RT upgrade from HTTP/1 to HTTP/2"
* "Must demonstrate 10Gbit/sec load-balancer implementation on COTS PC"
* "Client must offer unique device or user identifier"
* "Not allow cookies or other server initiated tagging of client."
* "Replace User-agent with something of finite size and preferably usable."

and so on (examples only!)

Picking what you call "a starting point" -- no matter which of the three
you pick -- will put many of these decisions outside the reach of the WG.


PS: Your argument that it's better to have SPDY inside pissing out
than outside pissing in, is just capitulation by a different name.

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, 16 July 2012 09:17:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:02 UTC