W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:24:43 +0000
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7905.1373754283@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>, Yoav Nir writ
es:

>Better, but requires a lot of work to deploy. This runs the risk of repeating
>ng the IPv6 experience. We make it too different, and people will not want 
>to deploy it.

Uhm no.

The "IPv6 experience" is defining a new protocol which offers no
tangible benefits for anybody, and comes with a lot of transistion
headaches.

That's where we are with the current HTTP/2.0 draft.

If IPv6 had addressed one of the major needs, for instance multihoming
without BGP (ie: Anycast), people would have jumped on it, but all
the things people wanted threatned the big ISP monopolies, so those
"unnecessary features" were killed due to "lack of consensus".

If HTTP/2.0 offers something people actually want, they will swich,
if all it offers is "more of the same, only slightly different" they
will not.

Solving the EU/Cookie privacy issue and saving bandwidth at the
same time, would be a desirable feature.

-- 
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 Saturday, 13 July 2013 22:25:06 UTC

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