Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Thu Aug 19 20:19:26 2010, Francis Brosnan Blázquez wrote:
> Hi Roberto,
> 
> > I don't think that is the case since I'm likely to have to
> > load-balance millions or billions of connections and not have the
> > ability to modify or place interesting requirements on the servers
> > while remaining competitive.
> 
> While I see interesting the case you are exposing (zillions of
> connections), it does not make it a representative case at all. As  
> you
> know, good protocol design is based on function delegation: each  
> layer
> makes a particular defined function.
> 
> 
Actually, good protocol design is about making stuff that works.  
Anything else is very much a secondary consideration, and while  
certain principles are useful, the one I'm most concerned with is the  
end-to-end principle, which (loosely) states that you minimize the  
amount of smarts in intermediaries, and force complexity to the ends.

> I still believe WS should focus more on transport features and let
> application protocols on top of it to complete the work....
> 
> ...because it will be always better than any solution worked by the  
> WG.
> In other words: let the people to choose what to place on top of WS.

No, because it means that intermediaries need to work higher up the  
stack in order to do things like multiplexing and refragmentation,  
both of which are very low-level tasks.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade