Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

"Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Wed, 02 July 2014 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595721B27DF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0rsaPDTSFlfZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E08CA1B27DB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X2GmD-0004Xb-1m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:24:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:24:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X2GmD-0004Xb-1m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com>) id 1X2Gm8-0004RH-T1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:24:24 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com>) id 1X2Gm7-0001C2-8n for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:24:24 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r20so9206510wiv.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 02:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :importance; bh=ffI5zWfu4V2lHhmCmDLluPTxZsuD+zobUIVF97ooL4g=; b=qmwLXntATTyJZU0qiU0D5W0n6TM+ZJmrco0NqdtzsSKkS1IsU5k4pDF2EugqfddpFh mrizbzLIli3G3LroDqIB3uZDcOINaSTodmA0nZix6IlM/q1EDIhO4RUq2ASkzm7sH7eg NqmmVrJ910lpH+PTexE5N6Nc+ffmqmTXlipPdBeNAxXi3B/x/YgyWSJWYqhPQmyzGf1s T70QZ1W/+91bG4TBFJn4erjtceSstrkmJtW/DQBq7Uqd2eeBOcxFdPK3DR3hHKmmYz6S 9/amY1kVZIvcnrEk0ka6yWZ9F2uLg/1IRNvWIx3OeYHJowUCykAbgEs1htLfgGVtmXqD CpqA==
X-Received: by 10.194.243.10 with SMTP id wu10mr58677801wjc.44.1404293036437; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 02:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arekh.ddns.net (sat78-8-88-174-226-208.fbx.proxad.net. [88.174.226.208]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey16sm53114533wid.14.2014.07.02.02.23.55 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jul 2014 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.ddns.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6042E46C2; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:23:54 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arekh.ddns.net
Received: from arekh.ddns.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arekh.okg [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TbJ66SP8-gkm; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:23:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from arekh.ddns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.ddns.net (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:23:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 163.116.6.12 (SquirrelMail authenticated user nim) by arekh.ddns.net with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:23:38 +0200
Message-ID: <0a36eecddce77117dca7a3d0cd5c0188.squirrel@arekh.ddns.net>
In-Reply-To: <F19D7D32-4264-423A-8B9B-F6F9036ACFEE@mnot.net>
References: <CAA4WUYgqE02o9jftm1ERJGsKBqau9CRAJ4=JF0r3x-11gh5ZXQ@mail.gmail.com> <76400.1404195794@critter.freebsd.dk> <F19D7D32-4264-423A-8B9B-F6F9036ACFEE@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:23:38 +0200
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "\"William Chan (陈智昌)\"" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-15.fc21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.749, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1X2Gm7-0001C2-8n a56104493ad616ce1bed402c06514edd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0a36eecddce77117dca7a3d0cd5c0188.squirrel@arekh.ddns.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/25096
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Le Mar 1 juillet 2014 08:55, Mark Nottingham a écrit :
Mark,

> I appreciate you're concerned about the CONTINUATION issue, but using it
> to derail other discussions isn't appropriate.

In the defence of PHK he seems to be the only one defending the http users
at large and not the subset present here

> Also, emotive language like "bogus misfeatures" and "blackmail" doesn't
> help make decisions; it's just a distraction. Please refrain.

Because
> In order to prevent the extension mechanism from failing (due to
> intermediaries whitelisting extensions and disallowing all others, or some
> other sort of brokenness)

is not emotive and a distraction?

Do you not understand still that websocket and other attempts to force
some classes of traffic through security equipments didn't fail because of
some technical default in those equipments, but because those equipments
were deployed to block those classes of traffic in the first place? And
that any attempt to force the issue in http2 will result in the same
outcome for this new protocol?

And BTW, in what way PHK's characterisation of
> A vendor that owned both an auto-updating client and popular website
> could enforce this.

is not perfectly accurate?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot