- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:44:19 +0000
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- cc: Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <50F0774A.6010706@cs.tcd.ie>, Stephen Farrell writes: >> There is nothing "state of the art" about mixing p2p and e2e >> trust and security, PTT's and banks have been doing it for >> centuries. > >Feel free to post details. I at least don't know what >you mean. I'm sure you do, you just don't know that you know it. If you are working in a big organization, I'm sure you don't go to the post-office yourself, you have an intern mail-service that will do so for you, and thanks to the separation of envelope from message, they can do so, without opening your letter. >(I'm also not aware of how 16th century PTT's operated >to be honest. RFC 1149 perhaps?:-) Amongst other technologies. I'm sure the chinese and the romans would beg to differ, but read for instance: http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/the-oldest-post-office-in-the-world-1-465812 >> The problem the HTTPbis effort has, is that it's trying to >> improve on one of the worlds most popular and used protocols[1]. >> >> Addressing some of its actual user-perceived shortcomings would >> be a very smart move from a marketing point of view. > >Yes, but this isn't a marketing exercise. Ask the IPv6 people if they still think that was a smart position to take. Catering to your users needs is a good way to win adoption. -- 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, 11 January 2013 20:44:43 UTC