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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:15:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABaLYCspU2_nfzJ-AOcYcDeKCvDkqDZQMx_7On38sYPRbiL7VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>wrote:

> On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>>  (that can still use HTTP/1.1 if they want to!)
> I have to chime in here.  I keep seeing this point mentioned on the list.
>  This is not a valid counterpoint, or a justification for adding something
> to HTTP/2, or an excuse for ignoring someone's use-case for HTTP.  If
> anybody chooses HTTP/1.1 over HTTP/2 for _any reason_ other than laziness
> or stubborn change aversion, then HTTP/2 has failed in its primary purpose.

At its limits, this can't be true, because what you're saying is if one
dude at the Computer History Museum of Timbuktu says he can't get HTTP/2 to
work on his PDP-11 because of crypto laws unique to his religious beliefs,
then HTTP/2 has failed.

The problem with not having an escape valve for minority use cases is that
anyone can hold up the entire effort by saying "I wouldn't use that for my
xyz use case".

I assure you that there is no form of HTTP/2, TLS or otherwise that will
satisfy everyone.  I'm happy to debate what the merits are for when this
escape hatch of 'just use http/1.1' is valid and when it is not, but what
you're saying is simply impractical.


> --
>   Matthew Kerwin
>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 07:16:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC