Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

"Shelby Moore" <shelby@coolpage.com> Sun, 15 August 2010 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <shelby@coolpage.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7923A68B6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.014, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
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 d8IO9yUwYz-s for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www5.webmail.pair.com (www5.webmail.pair.com [66.39.3.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2785D3A689E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76411 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Aug 2010 12:27:10 -0000
Received: from 121.97.54.174 ([121.97.54.174]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user shelby@coolpage.com) by sm.webmail.pair.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:27:10 -0400
Message-ID: <ae7473f15c4839c4efba4ea9fc4c0953.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:27:10 -0400
From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: shelby@coolpage.com
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:26:36 -0000

Hi all,

My objective was to make sure I understood well the issues (including the
view opposing the concensus) and possibly to swing them and any lurkers to
the concensus declaration:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02955.html

I had read that before I posted to this mailing list, but I saw some
protest (maybe that was only relative to the possibility of using TLS+NDN
handshake), so I wanted to add my belated vote/input to the concensus. And
I had not read someone make the point of the impossibility of forcing
global proxy code upgrades for each new Upgrade
flavor-of-the-month (but I only read roughly about 50-100 posts in the
archives).

Apologies but from the perspective of an outsider, I wasn't clear that all
of the community had consented to the wisdom and I am hoping to sway many
of the rest of them, so that the concensus is not oppression (51% forcing
their will on 49%).  I have no idea what percentage was still on the
fence, because lurkers aren't counted.

Apology to berate the point.

I also was trying to understand well the opposing factors that were
driving this need to push the bounds.  I have sent some comments to the
list today in another thread, which may illuminate for me some the forces
against WebSocket (if my logic is correct).  I hope some will comment on
those.

Frankly from reading the spec, I didn't get a good sense of the issues
faced due to proxies.  The spec gives me no realistic way to evaluate the
likelihood of success of this architecture.  I came to the discussion list
from Wikipedia after reading as much as I could via Google, to try to get
a deeper understanding of the issues.  I really think a good summary of
the issues is not easy to extract.  So I have written down some thoughts
and sent them to the list.  Again I hope that was helpful.  Apologies if
not.