Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <735E34EE-70B3-4140-8EF4-03BA19D00F9E@mnot.net>, Mark
> Nottingham writes:
>
> >> For instance the $BIGWWW focus on running over TLS means that other
> >> high-performance applications, such as News, TV and porn gets
> >> saddled with a small and horribly inefficient (2^n-1, really ?)
> >> framesize.
> >
> >Making smaller, more targeted proposals might help; e.g., a well-aligned
> >but still small frame size.
>
> I did.
>
> It was called jumbo frames.
>
> It got shot down.
>
> You just did so again a minute ago in another email.
>
> >Unfortunately, you've left it until very late to get involved in
> >detail, which makes getting such changes in more and more difficult.
>
> Come of it Mark...
>
> You know perfectly well that I already from the start objected to the
> accelerated timeframe, because it only left room to gold-plate SPDY
> with all its warts.


> Some of us tried to squeeze out a competing draft nontheless, only to
> be steam-rolled with the "no time for that..." argument and none of
> the points made in that draft ever revisited systematically and whenever
> we raise them, they get shut down.
>

You were not steam rolled.  You've been making the same arguments for 2
years.   You've been listened to.  Some of your suggestions have been
taken.  You've definitely been heard.  You just don't like the answer.

Mike






>
> Given the appearance of a pre-ordained result and no willingness
> to even accept the legitimate concerns of proxy implementors, I had
> better things to do.




> --
> 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.
>
>