- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:46:34 +0000
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, William Chan ( ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Jesse Wilson <jesse@swank.ca>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <20140702003841.39ce24b01a491aaedf288969@bisonsystems.net>, "Eric J. Bowman" writes: >"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: >> >> Since it seems HTTP/2 is just going to be a short lived stopgap on top >> of TLS only, maybe it will never become a real problem. >> >> In HTTP/3 we'll have to be serious about it. >> > >My disillusionment with the HTTP/2 process stems from this concept that >it doesn't need to be "gotten right" because we'll address any problems >in HTTP/3. Am I the only one who thinks the horse should come before >the cart? What really surprises me is that we see such proposals to name&shame proxies which do not allow random private extensions through, but no proposals to name&shame browsers which do not want to support HTTP/2 upgrade ? The goals are obviously not to ensure the widest possible adoption of HTTP/2. I certainly looks like a number of WG participants are much more focuses on getting HTTP/2 to work for their own private, (soon to be walled ?), garden, than to make HTTP/2 the best possible protocol for the web as such. -- 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 Wednesday, 2 July 2014 06:46:57 UTC