Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

In message <CABaLYCsF_UTjxVwKbOJwW=96JCj13Yjs+LLnZVBDc5Frum4cpg@mail.gmail.com>, Mike Belshe writes:

>I actually did wrack my
>brain searching for empirical methods to decide "when is the protocol
>ready".  Would it be a certain number of votes?  implementations?  number
>of bugs?  days without incident?

I'd say that the sheer number of unmistakeable pronouncements about
deliberately reduced functionality implementations is a good metric.

We have two (or more ?) major-ish browsers nixing HTTP/1 upgrade.

We have a number of proxies (involved in about 30-50% of all HTTP1
content delivery) nixing CONTINUATION and we have a lot of webmasters
who have yet to see any evidence that adding HTTP/2 support would
ever be worth their while.

And we have talk about HTTP/3.0 before HTTP/2.0 even got to Last Rites.

Maybe the mistake was to rename SPDY ?

If this draft had been named SPDY and with a stated goal of "giving
a better user experience" at a subset of large web-properties at
the expense of interoperability with HTTP/1, then it would be a
very fine draft indeed, because most people could just ignore it and
firewalls and content-filters could just block it and force
fall-back to HTTP/1.0.

But naming it HTTP/2.0 rightfully raises the expectations a LOT,
and the talk about HTTP/3 already now makes it painfully obvious
that those expectations are not even close to being been met.

-- 
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 07:35:47 UTC