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

Re: h2 priority

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:06:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJH+N0VCHV5pcG-WtZyOkteZKRptEq_mVaTFUouiqF+UFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 September 2014 16:25, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I disagree that 2.5 years in committee is rushed by any definition. Some
> folks can't be bothered to generate running code or sometimes even comment
> for much of that time; but that pattern persists in any group no matter the
> term or the people (I too am guilty at times.)

I find this argument to be utterly bizarre. If we've spent 2.5 years
in committee and we turn out a protocol that's fatally flawed I'd
argue that that is a failure far worse than spending 5 years in
committee and getting something actually useful. If the opinion of the
WG is that h2-14 is fatally flawed then charging ahead for the sake of
finishing is madness. I am not the first person to make this
observation about a WG: Peter Hintjens wrote an extensive article on
this topic about the work done on AMQP in 2008[1].

Note that I don't believe h2-14 to be fatally flawed. *Flawed*,
certainly, but not fatally so. It solves a specific set of problems
and appears to solve them fairly well. That is a success by some
measure of success. I believe if we shipped h2-14 now it would be
adopted and used reasonably widely. It is not clear to me what the
definition of 'good enough' is, but it's clear to me that much of the
WG believes that bar is met. That portion of the WG is responsible for
assuaging Roy's concerns. Step up, y'all.

[1] http://www.imatix.com/articles:whats-wrong-with-amqp/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:07:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC