Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

In message <CABaLYCsvLCZPcDObg2A2yP8yG+aunsT1ZPyy_Ha9hGBCY15Heg@mail.gmail.com>, Mike Belshe writes:

>> We have two (or more ?) major-ish browsers nixing HTTP/1 upgrade.
>
>protocol upgrade has always been optional at the client discretion.  this
>is not new with http/2.

Absolutely, just like my decision to implement HTTP/2 or not
implement HTTP/2 is entirely discretionary.

But such discretionary decisions people will make really big
footprints on the future success of HTTP/2 in the wider web,
so these "political statements" should weigh heavy in the
judgement of the drafts future prospects.

Of course if the only thing cares about are a few $BigWWW sites,
then that doesn't matter, but if the question is if HTTP/2.0 is
worthy of its name, it matters a LOT.

>> 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.
>>
> continuation is not a "throw the whole thing out" issue.

Actually it is.

It's a clear indication of technical ineptitude when it comes to
good and clean protocol design.  I'm 100% certain that you'd get
flunked by Andy Tanembaum for a END_STREAM flag which doesn't, and
if that doesn't do it, a framesize with a maximum payload of (2^n-1)
certainly will.

>So now you're saying we should nix http/2, because you started talking
>about http/3.

I'm saying that if we rush into Last Call with the draft we have
now, we have no choice but to start talking about HTTP/3 right away,
because it is simply not good enough.

-- 
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 10:37:52 UTC