Re: #603: Frame layout

In message <>, Daniel Stenberg

>I think we should put this suggestion in the queue of things to do with the 
>binary format if we for some reason are lead into changing the format for some 
>other and more important reason. I don't think these stated motivations are 
>enough to (yet again) break the binary format.

I continually amazes me that backwards compatibility with a handful
of prototype implementations is used as an argument against improving
the successor to the worlds most widely used protocol.

History is littered with crappy decisions which could have been made
better for trivial cost at the right time and place, but because of
shortsightedness were not, causing almost unlimited grief later on.

The framing-layer of HTTP/2 should be given particular attention,
since it would be to everybodys huge advantage that it also be good
enough for HTTP/3 etc.

Roy and many others have repeatedly pointed out that the current
framing is a mess and that it should be cleaned up, formalized and
made future proof.

The fact that pretty much everybody is able to jot down a better,
cleaner and more orthogonal framing layer in a matter of minutes,
should be considered highly embarrasing.

Is that really the reception you want HTTP/2 to get ?

   "Huh ?  I could do that better in 30 seconds, here, let me show you..."

Just because five or ten random people have implemented the draft
at present is no excuse not to do the best job we can, before
hundreds or evne thousands of other people will have to implement

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 Monday, 29 September 2014 08:46:27 UTC