Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <
> CAA4WUYgJunXNe4BbZd9ZVJ8QqXZibJ2J9QyCf493ZtU+Ay4hxA@mail.gmail.com>,
> =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGF
> uICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:
>
> >> And what if the MITM proxies disagree with you about which parts of
> >> the standard deserve to work and block some of them ?
> >
> >> What will you do ?
> >
> >Hard fail. User visible error. End users blame the last mover,  [...]
>
> This is why I called the proposal "blackmail".
>
> I think HTTP/2 should strive to be such a good protocol that people will
> want it, rather than try to intimidate any dissent with thinly veiled
> "Nice website you have here, pity if anything happened to it..." threats.
>

Hm, I don't follow. I'm not sure if we disagree in our logical conclusions,
or that we're starting from different premises and have different
fundamental assumptions. Let me try the latter. I assume that the inability
to reliably deploy new TCP options (due to middlebox interference) is a bad
thing. Do you disagree with this?


>
> --
> 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.
>