W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Forced Resignation

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:53:24 -0600
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20140702055324.615088ff7412a6b8f28dd468@bisonsystems.net>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> So is your claim that because browsers helped advance a purportedly
> failed technology, they will get everything else wrong too?

No, my claim is that there's proper Internet architecture (end-to-
end) on the one hand, and the needs of the corporate bottom-line on the
other. What I've yet to see, is a worthwhile protocol designed to the
bottom-line needs of corporations while rejecting tried-and-true ideas
like end-to-end networking which dates back to before I was born.

I have also yet to see an argument against end-to-end protocol design
on the Internet which hews to the technical, not the political; the
proof that this is a bad way to architect Internet protocols is, to me,
WebSocket due to its unanticipated cost of deployment due to a totally
anticipated lack of scaling -- regardless of who helped advance it.

The relevance to this discussion is corporate capture of TAG; while the
downside is occasionally losing a member in good standing, what's the
upside? More protocols which just wing it on an ad-hoc basis pretending
nothing Jon Postel ever said remains relevant today? Get three folks on
TAG from a corporation which rejects "Postelism" for political reasons,
and that's exactly what we'd have, rather than a body which attempts
(however futile) to maintain architectural correctness.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:03 UTC