Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

I guess I can't just lurk today!

Actually for SPDY we're trying to do a lot of experimentation (i.e.
research) and then we'll figure out what the standard needs to be.
Until we know it is actually better *and why*, it is not useful to waste
people's time discussing a standard.

Were we to do it the other way around (set a standard, and then do
research), things would be unlikely to work well.. what else would you have
us do?
We're even being public about it, with open source implementations for
something which will be backwards compatible with what exists today...
Honestly, if it worked, I'd happily use a different port (currently we're
wanting to use port 443 and it *is* an encrypted channel), but we have data
that shows that this doesn't work reliably.

It seems like the network has ossified a bit, and it is hard to get any
changes out there.
-=R

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Instead, what's happened is the equivalent of me talking to some of the
> > people working on HTTP, and then saying "ok we'll do HTTP on a new
> mailing
> > list" and not even letting the HTTP working group know about it.
>
> Hello!!!!    Google has done exactly that!    SPDY!
>
>  http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesomely great that google is doing
> such research.   But google has to be aware that their market power
> makes them a poor community player.    If chrome suddenly started
> shipping with SPDY enabled by default, then that would effectively
> be a hostile takeover of HTTP.
>
> As google has done exactly this with websocket, it shows that they
> have no  concerns about doing a non consensus based takeover of
> port 80, so why not takeover the entire web protocol as well.
>
>
> You talk as if the IETF is trying to do the take over.
>
> The  reality is that the IETF has had custodianship of the internet
> protocols since day dot, and it is Google^H^H^H^H^H^HWhatWG that is
> trying to take over the job of creating new internet standards.
> Maybe that was warranted in the case of HTML5 and the W3C, but I see
> no evidence that IETF deserves to be usurped when it comes to
> their role regarding internet protocols.
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>