W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:52:42 +0000
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <83811.1403776362@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CACweHNA__tT+_NAiPN0_e8z77Pt3eQkTN0RZVAamnt6hCLbs-A@mail.gmail.com>
, Matthew Kerwin writes:

>I think the initial release of HTTP2 doesn't have to be perfect, and in
>fact=E2=80=8B, thanks to the extensibility, I don't think it has to even be
>that good. [...]

>Does it really matter which RFC contains the text, so long as it's out
>there in the end? [...]

You're trolling now, right ?

No, HTTP2 does not need to be and certainly isn't "perfect", but it should
also not be so horribly misfigured from birth that people will prefer
HTTP/1 over it just because of that.

And yes, it does matter what RFC's contain what text, in particular for
the first one, since that's the one everybody is going to stare at
to decide if HTTP/2 is something they should bother about.

CONTINUATION in the present draft would become my goto-example for
bad protocol design and layering violations if I taught classes on
data communications.

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 Thursday, 26 June 2014 09:53:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC