Re: [hybi] Versioning is a anti-pattern

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Mon, 06 September 2010 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 572843A67B4 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 vFLm7DLBmXMd for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6933E3A63EB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1808701gwb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.13.4 with SMTP id 4mr518551anm.157.1283758601770; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c7sm8750409ana.18.2010.09.06.00.36.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so4508176iwn.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.191.147 with SMTP id dm19mr5799823ibb.6.1283758599199; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.187.218 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C847F06.70903@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <20100901224502.0519B3A687C@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTikP1CF22fL0rBniXmrxEoBAbTNfzP9kyiNA4nbb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_1m36ThFZTH_aGE_Unz0KTeexJq_74UGr2j+u@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009022022090.7470@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTi=yQyvX_z3NhvNc4dFjfHwTH2edhYM2LukZDfsm@mail.gmail.com> <4C847F06.70903@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:36:00 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=gz8U0cztkAPz1--=W=Vpen7Hv9O8Xrgxn4A_X@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Versioning is a anti-pattern
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, 06 Sep 2010 07:36:14 -0000

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2010/09/04 11:06, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Stenberg<daniel@haxx.se>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> Please don't add versioning to the protocol.  Versioning is a
>>>> anti-pattern
>>>> for the web.
>>>
>>> We've seen this mentioned before on this list but without a lot of
>>> clarifications and I'm curious:
>>>
>>> What are the other transfer protocols for which versioning have failed so
>>> significantly that versioning in protocols can be called an anti-pattern?
>>
>> Versioning has been a big pain point for TLS.  Here's a presentation
>> that outlines some recent implementation experience:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/65/slides/tls-6.pdf
>>
>> I encourage you to read through the presentation (it's pretty short).
>
> This is indeed discouraging. TLS server side implementers seem to be rather
> challenged. For a security-related protocol, that's rather bad indeed. I
> very much hope WS implementers can do a better job.

I wish you the best of luck.  I'm not optimistic that WebSocket
servers will have a higher implementation quality than TLS servers.

Adam