- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:37:56 +0000
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CAOdDvNrOYevs8Mu2gQnUqDr8-_kn0Mfm16uGyQgoZ6EADMnWZw@mail.gmail.com> , Patrick McManus writes: >To clarify my statements, I indicated that the world is moving beyond >HTTP/1 - the data shows that. I think you suffer badly from selection bias when you make this statement. *Your* world may be moving in that direction, but there are huge swatches of HTTP traffic that doesn't seem to follow you and your little red wagon. IMO this effect has been present throughout, where representatives from a small number of large sites seem to confuse their site and other sites of the kind with "the world". The whole "Mandatory TLS" is probably where we saw this most clearly: The advocates of "Mandatory TLS" all seem to be from sites which require user login and which have privacy data and concerns. But those sites are not even close to carrying 50% of the HTTP traffic in the net today: The majority of traffic is public without privacy concerns that is not already revealed by the existence of the TCP connection in the first place. I share the anti-NSA sentiment as much as the next guy, but there is never going to be a sane case to be made why CNN or BBC's frontpage has to suffer the huge overhead of TLS. Nor is there any sane architectural argument to be made why the emergency-services web-pages of national governments should risk DoS'ing themselves with TLS during a catastrophy. And there is no way the porn industry is ever going to fork out money for TLS hardware for the 30+% of the total HTTP traffic they serve. So yes, you may *think* you have felt the world move, but I think it is just the faulty suspension of your office-chair. Poul-Henning -- 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 Tuesday, 2 September 2014 17:38:21 UTC