IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] BEEP

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Tue, 14 April 2009 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.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 C7EF23A6800 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 c0sSsUhB8t8Z for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86D53A688F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so35821tim.25 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.110.21.17 with SMTP id 17mr9648470tiu.5.1239670884023; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.10.1.12? (60-242-119-126.tpgi.com.au [60.242.119.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm971520tia.9.2009.04.13.18.01.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49E3E05D.6070800@webtide.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:01:17 +1000
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, hybi@ietf.org
References: <49E3D363.8030803@mozilla.com> <49E3D937.5020009@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140040260.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140040260.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] BEEP
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: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:00:14 -0000

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> But I think there will only be 1 opportunity this decade to make 
>> significant changes to the firewalls/gateways of the internet.
> 
> If significant changes can be made at all, I see no reason to believe 
> there would be a ten year cool-down period between changes. I think this 
> is an artificial concern.


Ian,

RFC2616 is dated June 1999 and governs the basic
behaviour of firewalls and proxies that are the impediment
to any of the protocols we are talking about.

Even if changes can be made faster than that, we should
not be proposing a change to the network infrastructure that is
not extensible to a reasonable set of anticipated requirements.

RFC2616 has lasted a decade because it is flexible and extensible
enough to adapt to changing demands.  It's not that other protocols
have not been better, it just that HTTP has been good enough to
prevent any other protocol establishing dominance.

This is a good thing and we should strive to emulate it!

cheers

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email