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

Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it> Wed, 22 December 2010 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B913A6B37 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:22:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8LpgyUOquWNb for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.uniroma2.it (smtp.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219493A68C6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpauth.uniroma2.it (smtpauth.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.46]) by smtp.uniroma2.it (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id oBMMJkr1027895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:19:47 +0100
Received: from [79.22.230.252] (host252-230-dynamic.22-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [79.22.230.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtpauth.uniroma2.it (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id oBMMNuHJ027670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:23:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4D127A7D.10803@uniroma2.it>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:23:57 +0100
From: Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
References: <C93795E7.DB72%Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
In-Reply-To: <C93795E7.DB72%Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:24:37 -0800
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-loreto-http-bidirectional.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:22:15 -0000

as a co-author, I understand the concerns raised by Brian and I agree 
with Peter's proposals to address them

We can clarify that the goal of this draft is not to endorse the 
long-polling techniques (but rather to present the known issues and the 
  counter-measures that try to mitigate these issues)

I do think we should not go further and add a judgemental statement 
along the line of Brian's comment ("This is real example of protocol 
abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for this and doesn't do this properly")

but I think that we can more neutrally add a sentence stating that the 
proposed techniques stretch the original semantic of HTTP and that the 
HTTP protocol was not designed for this use... which is a fact rather 
than a judgement.

Stefano

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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
> 
> 
> 


-- 
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Via del Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY

http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/

E-mail  : stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Cell.   : +39 320 4307310
Office  : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770  (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************