Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

In message <>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGF
uICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:

>> A bad analogy is like a wet screwdriver:  TCP options are not
>> information carrying (unless you're truly evil that is...)
>I'm confused. I don't understand why you think this is a bad analogy. What
>information can a HTTP/2 extension carry that a TCP option can't?

Pretty much any kind of contraband a filtering proxy might be
installed to stop ?

(Further: Very few people are able to add a new TCP option to their
outgoing packets.  Everybody can add a new HTTP/2 extension simply
by downloading a program, but yes, I do know about the IP-over-TCP-OPTIONS
hack, and it is very relevant to this discussion.)

>We're doing multiplexing in the application layer
>since we've been unable to deploy multiplexing at a lower layer.

We have never really tried to deploy multiplexing in the transport
layer, we know it isn't happening on its own, but we have never
really tried to push it.

If we can (and that's TBD of course) publish a HTTP/n running over
SCTP which gives tangible benefits, then people would have a reason
to make SCTP work.

Without a killer-app, it stays on their TODO list.

Right after IPv6.

And giving up without ever even trying is a looser-attitude IMO.

>It sounds to me like you think [...]

I think that always taking the easy path through whatever unintended
wormholes we may be able to find is going to totally muck up any
semblance of architecture which the internet protocols ever had.

It is also a cowardly abdication as members of society, for our
and our technologys impact on the lay person and their civil rights.

If there were good (as opposed to merely "meh...") reasons for
making TCP options, IPv6 or SCTP work, they will start working all
by themselves, but you have to dangle at tasty carrot for it to

When I say:

>"There are never any easy technical fixes for hard political problems."

I'm not talking about TCP options, I'm talking about freedom of
speech.  Privacy.  Protection against unreasonable search, seisure
or monitoring.

Also known as "the hard political problems".

>My assertion is that this situation is unacceptable. You're right, for
>political / compliance reasons, proxies are going to be there and do these
>things that ossify our protocols and force us to tunnel higher up the stack
>and develop way more cruft in our protocol stack.

And I'm telling you:  That is neither a way to build a civilized society nor
a well-functioning or -performing network.

The Global War on Privacy, as carried out by governments and gigacorps alike
can only be won through politics, technology will never do it, and doing
"elastic advances" further and further up the stack is just an eupherism
for slow defeat.

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 19:49:17 UTC