Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Sat, 13 July 2013 22:26 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9268821F9A17 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qGxNyE7QHUzY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A3A21F9A10 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uy8Fe-0002RY-TV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:25:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:25:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uy8Fe-0002RY-TV@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1Uy8FW-0002QG-Mm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:25:06 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1Uy8FV-0007Zd-UX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:25:06 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A413EB56; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:24:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r6DMOhQL007906; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:24:43 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <CA+qvzFPUpcm6kUtJx+rTw8Dpp4Gtx4Bmr3XPDhjNsjchUfN9_w@mail.gmail.com> <51DE1E32.9010801@treenet.co.nz> <CAP+FsNdcYhA=V5Z+zbt70b5e7WmcmXgjG5M9L3vfXeXfTwmRnw@mail.gmail.com> <51DE327C.7010901@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnXeqD6wh0dcJ1Dz=4PLAJNkDeGcCuzMr9ATd_7xS7nbGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcUkLf3CTAB4jwicnsiKWLGVY6=hX0k=0256SR_gcVt9A@mail.gmail.com> <092D65A8-8CB7-419D-B6A4-77CAE40A0026@gmail.com> <3835.1373612286@critter.freebsd.dk> <CD9E163F-1225-4DA8-9982-8BDBD16B1051@mnot.net> <1772.1373629495@critter.freebsd.dk> <20130712125628.GC28893@1wt.eu> <22115082-53F8-433C-9497-755800803B93@checkpoint.com> <2101.1373699489@critter.freebsd.dk> <29B4ED34-8A7F-477F-AC80-47BC2205198F@checkpoint.com> <7137.1373748071@critter.freebsd.dk> <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:24:43 +0000
Message-ID: <7905.1373754283@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.296, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Uy8FV-0007Zd-UX e845ca91ef08f1f8724b30cac6f346c0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7905.1373754283@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18758
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>

In message <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>, Yoav Nir writ
es:

>Better, but requires a lot of work to deploy. This runs the risk of repeating
>ng the IPv6 experience. We make it too different, and people will not want 
>to deploy it.

Uhm no.

The "IPv6 experience" is defining a new protocol which offers no
tangible benefits for anybody, and comes with a lot of transistion
headaches.

That's where we are with the current HTTP/2.0 draft.

If IPv6 had addressed one of the major needs, for instance multihoming
without BGP (ie: Anycast), people would have jumped on it, but all
the things people wanted threatned the big ISP monopolies, so those
"unnecessary features" were killed due to "lack of consensus".

If HTTP/2.0 offers something people actually want, they will swich,
if all it offers is "more of the same, only slightly different" they
will not.

Solving the EU/Cookie privacy issue and saving bandwidth at the
same time, would be a desirable feature.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.