Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 1:17 AM, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 1 Nov 2016, at 06:32, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2016-11-01 02:32, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>>> Cory, Julian, thank you for looking into the I-D.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for looking into the existing implementations using Python.
>>> Your research makes it evident that some kind of negotiation is
>>> mandatory if we are going to use 103 on the public Internet.
>> 
>> Having to negotiate it makes me sad.
> 
> I’m right there with you Julian. The 1XX response category gets to be another marker pointing us to the lesson the IETF has been learning for the past decade or so: extension points on a specification that no-one uses rust over time and become unusable.

No.  What I've learned is that every feature in every protocol is poorly
implemented by some poor soul who thinks they deserve special consideration
for their inability to interoperate with the future.  I have, in the past,
consistently refused such considerations.

> In this case, I think the 1XX problem is more oversight than anything else. The problems in all these cases are tractable, and can be fairly easily fixed. It’s just that someone needs to spend that time.

They are easily fixed.  Force the broken implementations to die in a miserable
way and teach people not to write crappy code.

There is absolutely no reason to negotiate 1xx codes.  If some application fails
because their developers can't read, it is not our responsibility to work around them.
If we do anyway, the entire Internet goes to crap (just like it has for HTML).
At most, we use User-Agent or Server to flag non-compliant implementations and
work around only specific versions of known-to-be-deployed breakage.

....Roy

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 22:50:55 UTC