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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:26:25 +1000
Cc: (wrong string) 陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <864EB174-B35C-4799-95BD-166CF2797108@mnot.net>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
On 2 Jul 2014, at 7:23 pm, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:

> Le Mar 1 juillet 2014 08:55, Mark Nottingham a crit :
> Mark,
> 
>> I appreciate you're concerned about the CONTINUATION issue, but using it
>> to derail other discussions isn't appropriate.
> 
> In the defence of PHK he seems to be the only one defending the http users
> at large and not the subset present here

Sorry, nobody gets to wear the mantle of I defend the users." Thats too easy.


>> Also, emotive language like "bogus misfeatures" and "blackmail" doesn't
>> help make decisions; it's just a distraction. Please refrain.
> 
> Because
>> In order to prevent the extension mechanism from failing (due to
>> intermediaries whitelisting extensions and disallowing all others, or some
>> other sort of brokenness)
> 
> is not emotive and a distraction?

Um, yeah.


> Do you not understand still that websocket and other attempts to force
> some classes of traffic through security equipments didn't fail because of
> some technical default in those equipments, but because those equipments
> were deployed to block those classes of traffic in the first place? And
> that any attempt to force the issue in http2 will result in the same
> outcome for this new protocol?

I understand that. 

These arguments are perfectly valid, and indeed may carry the day (in this case particularly, since I cant see there being any normative outcome agreed upon).

What Im not willing to tolerate is the continuing degradation of the discussion into point-scoring, personal attacks and assumptions of ill intent by ones opposition. It has no place here. For example, you didnt need to start that paragraph with Do you not understand Thats needlessly aggressive; just make the argument without impugning my ability to understand it.

BTW, the above is not a particular comment on PHKs participation, BTW  its about what seems to be a growing trend in the discussion.


> And BTW, in what way PHK's characterisation of
>> A vendor that owned both an auto-updating client and popular website
>> could enforce this.
> 
> is not perfectly accurate?

Yep.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 10:26:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC