Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On re-reading the introduction, I realize that the authors were too close to
the material to state the obvious fact you have pointed out. Ah, the beauty
of cross-area review. :)

I'll work with my co-authors to fix this.

On 12/22/10 12:39 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for the background. Indeed, a sentence or two about this being
> a temporary approach, as you suggest, would be very helpful.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 2010-12-23 07:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> This is real example of protocol abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for
>>> this and doesn't do this properly.
>> 
>> Which is why folks who are currently using long-polling techniques are
>> actively contributing to the HYBI WG.
>> 
>>> The draft is non-judgmental,
>>> and that might be a mistake.
>> 
>> The draft is Informational and therefore isn't really in a position to pass
>> judgments. All it is trying to say is: we know that long-polling techniques
>> have many issues, but if you're going to use these techniques then at least
>> try to do so with some modicum of intelligence. We're making the best of a
>> bad situation, and if the HYBI WG is successful then hopefully people won't
>> feel the need for long-polling techniques in the future.
>> 
>>> Personally, if I was in the IESG,
>>> I'd be considering a "holding my nose" ABSTAIN ballot
>> 
>> I'll be balloting RECUSE.
>> 
>>> unless some
>>> text stating that the methods described are really bad ideas
>>> was added.
>> 
>> I'd have no problem with adding a sentence or two to the effect that
>> long-polling is a temporary hack that emerged from the applications
>> community and will hopefully be superseded by technologies that aren't so
>> abusive of HTTP. I'll confer with my co-authors about wordsmithing, if they
>> agree that it's a good idea to add such text.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>>