- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:46 +0000
- To: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- Roberto Polli writes: > Hi Mark et al, > > Il giorno lun 22 ago 2022 alle ore 04:29 Mark Nottingham > <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto: > > Any further discussion about this? If not, I'll go ahead and incorporate the PR so we can see if it sticks. > > Just tried to get some more feedback on twitter on the topic > https://twitter.com/ioggstream/status/1561752931417952258 > feel free to RT. I think that is utterly bogus populism, the results of which should be ignored, because nobody is going to read through the underlying discussion before clicking. Making timestamps human readable is pointless, because, statistically speaking, no humans ever read these headers in the raw. The necessary handling of leap-second is complex and a layer-violation. And finally: it is much more expensive in terms of CPU power. So pointless, complex and wasting energy: What's not to like ? Poul-Henning PS: Did I read it right, did IETF finally, 20 years too late, realize that protocol choices have energy implications ? -- 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, 23 August 2022 08:20:08 UTC