- 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>
In message <504E861E-C63B-466B-8E81-E6FC67DDDC7B@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham w rites: Mark, 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. Poul-Henning 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