Re: [arch-d] deprecating Postel's principle - considered harmful

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 10 May 2019 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AC91200FC; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9qAMsu9iMTe; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com (mail-oi1-f170.google.com [209.85.167.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977D21200C5; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id u3so5465666oic.12; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ksa9uMTup0mQpEmSq/kpQRB05rUZeSyDEFcotkL5Kp0=; b=PQ5/pfJ/0hyc/Ov0rxW68jEkq1zLZKv3rrYpkcxLO+MNJ9q8gOmFcHRsqtHpfu3ZUv XO7XIRB4k44M7aOoXgU9d0aM+hJ3EmbLG55Bh14F3I/55GyN2Zg2yrPtqYujfXniwWou Rmc3WWyOdIKgMTn2F20SqU8Y8TXek6nGTWPNY5wb8z4CgwI6H4rlXvo1hB10J9NAQtXi Arkg0F0UOUx1evjZNFeNprC3zzM5Idq+Cp7E2loJOFXTbBnJrs+6BZk/fUFNIZgqGT+B jG1VSI9qh8nbM3wjcb8EvMS1v+8P/w9oeZ/CnPWanVbaM87Chx7lnxEUnQwDly1C5Ygd nmkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWYd6hV3soQUc11839D0OGytO3xGTHl6XOHFCxF+pV9cXXDi9+ CqiV7x2taENOKAjqmYmglGV6J/L7yzxFb7vAye1wJp1s
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwRMcRmuk4DlcP8XlUub9Qm9UgrF0YInGh8YQ2Rbu9qVxNx1I82pgmyica4xkBzLhIavAYDQ3EC5FezooUz41g=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b8c4:: with SMTP id i187mr6346859oif.6.1557521264885; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4255f805-9d9e-10a0-e6be-309779a33d26@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4255f805-9d9e-10a0-e6be-309779a33d26@network-heretics.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:47:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgrVQtjLuwCyeyFpEzNzLwnYhoMjc0POdZSE8MwtetioA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b9454a05888ead66"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Rq5B-ltHmFWfFSJyIDobKmQ2VgA>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] deprecating Postel's principle - considered harmful
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 20:47:47 -0000

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:00 PM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
wrote:

> p.s.  I've often said that "the web" was optimized for deployability.
> Lots of "the web" was poorly designed, IMO, but enough of it was
> designed just well enough to make it attractive to users, and that very
> attractiveness is what has fueled the effort required to improve it.   A
> similar statement could be made of the Internet itself.  As an engineer,
> this bugs me a bit, but I think it's reality.   It's often said that the
> perfect is the enemy of the good, but maybe sometimes, the good is the
> enemy of the deployable.   Being liberal in what you accept is similar,
> in a sense, to optimizing for deployability.
>

Damn right it was. Deployability was the primary consideration. We did not
use SGML because any of us liked it or considered it to be a solid
technical specification. We hated it and we though it was crap. The reason
we went there was that we needed buy-in from the publishing world.

But equally importantly, we broke a lot of what people thought were the
rules. I knew that there wasn't a Content-Length header in MIME when I
added it to the HTTP spec and so did Tim. But we pretended it did because
we needed to make the POST method work and we were not going to introduce
mandatory content body framing or SMTP type escaping.

A lot of the reason that the Web is the way it was is that the exponent
kicked in the growth curve while we were still trying to work out the
architecture. And the Web grew much much faster than the bandwidth needed
to serve it. Back in 1994, caching proxy servers were essential
infrastructure needed to make the Web work. That isn't the case now. In
fact TLS-everywhere is rapidly making them obsolete.