IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] HTTP is not a disaster. Was: Extensibility mechanisms?

Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pieterh@gmail.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 69A823A69C2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.177
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 XvRVLYFDSoZN for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90F33A68E0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so3171533pwj.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=c+/UOhIE+b5167exxMsGgejOwfPzjLgX+AkucCUTWfY=; b=MrVES2X3wbNu7AbV1wrJkPeoyP4ubUZ9uvwRZoh28mATrgQop5evXjdoxSffIszG0t 98rNHrJnbZN8mXNzzfnrmzIGLZLY8AyZAp4D7hCrAj3hrPTPlxTsVFg2V6L6SgamF1lW xraxLXSNrwEQrARZzAOsi+gHdaNVTmFdGvf2w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=M4TJWNLB9ZESip7N/O/t2py8eEgO/HS63OQhG1Xi7yTQ82THiXOkpxNRuRNdoAGt+E tDjjktZbfIv4WBuWbJlxqGBXiiKLJ2tcKvU0IYwdwOkDg52nquLzDJtCfbqaegiIjDRX jVkRGEJJOA3xziUwtuXuN+wpaMFP3MSBCbKmA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: pieterh@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.225.18 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BCC1938.7010807@webtide.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <4BC860FD.8080007@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004161952530.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC96A0D.4080904@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004180246380.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCAB2C1.2000404@webtide.com> <B9DC25B0-CD21-44E7-BD9B-06D0C9440933@apple.com> <4BCB7829.9010204@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004182349240.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC1938.7010807@webtide.com>
From: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:31:26 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7f9bf12a8fc57ed9
Received: by 10.140.252.8 with SMTP id z8mr3851885rvh.35.1271669506438; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <v2v5821ea241004190231x49e168f5ha6190c2fe97db03c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] HTTP is not a disaster. Was: Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:32:00 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:

>> IMHO, HTTP is a disaster in terms of getting multiple server-side
>> implementations.

> The HTTP server market is vibrant and dynamic and it is a
> misrepresentation to characterize it as a disaster.

This.  Having written multiple HTTP servers, I have to say that the
HTTP spec is just a bit complex but easy to implement securely, and
with perfect interoperability from the start.  It is hard to see how
this could _less_ of a disaster in terms of getting multiple
server-side implementations. There are literally thousands of them.

The market is dominated by a few because of natural monopolies on
back-end application infrastructure.  Platform monopolies, if you
like.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with HTTP.

-Pieter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email