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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:35:50 +0000
To: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>
cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <58417.1404333350@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAA4WUYhKLVyzPhOG2oQUiL0gJn0Zzye=H_opBpTEayZN9OdVuQ@mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGF
uICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:

>I think this is the critical distinction. You are more concerned about
>extensibility within a protocol that is typically implemented in user space
>(HTTP/2), as opposed to a protocol that is typically implemented in kernel
>space (TCP). Is that it? If so, I think that's a reasonable distinction to

Yes, it is a critical distinction.

The reason IP-over-TCP-OPTIONS still mostly works, is that it is
so hard to deploy and use that it has not become a big enough
problem, just like almost no companies have RFC1194 filters in place.

Being able to download a "unfiltering" version of a browser which
tunnels contraband through port 80 or 443 will be met with an
entirely different kind of resistance.

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 20:36:13 UTC

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