IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sat, 13 July 2013 21:16 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 0A75121F855F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 wvgN3TGM+klX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AB921F9C4F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uy79m-00009u-5X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:15:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:15:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uy79m-00009u-5X@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ynir@checkpoint.com>) id 1Uy79c-0006J5-CP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:14:56 +0000
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.68]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ynir@checkpoint.com>) id 1Uy79b-0005k3-CE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:14:56 +0000
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6DLE9vY027072; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:14:13 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {51E1C321-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.48]) by IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.91]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:14:08 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Thread-Index: AQHOfcCOZ2fHYp9biUaCEWX0LISz35leleMAgAAFrACAABKEAIAAzZcAgAAKzQCAAAHDAIAA5EwAgAAGJQCAAEn9gIAAE/4AgAByqACAAL9KgIAA3YiAgAAEsoCAAAk0gA==
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:14:08 +0000
Message-ID: <2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <7137.1373748071@critter.freebsd.dk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.84]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-cpdlp: 1168d55a3e0c0d738f7abf604480cbcd92854bbc4f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <5B82C36AB5FAA040A8AD7490CFF83634@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=194.29.34.68; envelope-from=ynir@checkpoint.com; helo=smtp.checkpoint.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.826, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Uy79b-0005k3-CE 7b21dff4ad56aa3ecbd11fe2eb0b740d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2B5A5C13-3012-46E5-9841-FDEC66614626@checkpoint.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18756
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>

On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:41 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <29B4ED34-8A7F-477F-AC80-47BC2205198F@checkpoint.com>, Yoav Nir writ
> es:
> 
>> It's more than procedural. Whatever is wrong with the use of cookies to 
>> manage sessions is wrong in HTTP/1.x just as much as it is in /2.0.
> 
> Yes, that's why we should solve the problem in HTTP/2.0 and make the
> protocol so good that people will desire to migrate because it is
> simply better.

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

IPv6 was rotting on the vine for 15 years before deployment started in earnest. And that happened only because IPv4 addresses were finally running out and all the NAT bandaids were not enough. 

I don't see any scarce resource in HTTP/1.1 that will force people to switch to HTTP/2.0.  Just because something's better does not mean that migration is worth the effort. 

Yoav

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status