4 ms·

This argument is false. Google contributed the protocol to IETF. Where the competitors introduced a lot of incompatible changes, which Google then implemented.

by redant 6y ago

This argument is false. Google contributed the protocol to IETF. Where the competitors introduced a lot of incompatible changes, which Google then implemented. The blog post is literally Google's announcement that they are moving to that public standard.

tpmx 6y ago
What other company could have done this? Was the fact that Google controls so much of the entire usage chain (chrome, google.com, youtube.com) irrelevant?
- bb88 6y ago
  Back in the 90s Microsoft had been rumored to be developing their own proprietary TCP replacement -- back when IIS was the king of the world. They could have shut off a large portion of IIS traffic to those that weren't running Internet Explorer.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    Makes sense. I guess they failed because they were too late to the web - Netscape ate their breakfast.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Have anything to read on this?
    - bb88 6y ago
      Apparently, was more than just a rumor. https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2002-June/002456.html https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2002-June/00... https://wiki.c2.com/?MicrosoftPalladium https://wiki.c2.com/?MicrosoftPalladium
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    It might have worked if the majority of web servers had been Microsoft’s, but my recollection is they never got close to having the majority of the web server market. The crown went from NCSA to Apache and then only recently to Nginx.
    - bb88 6y ago
      They had the majority of the corporate market at the time.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  In this specific case only three other companies make web browsers with significant market share (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft), so I guess you could argue only those three companies could have done this particular thing and you're correct that only Google owns Youtube. But more generally companies have written up IETF paperwork for other protocols. Lots of Microsoft protocols have RFCs for example. But one thing that's less common is actually engaging with full-blown IETF working group standards development like Google did here, as opposed to just saying "Look here's the protocol we built, you can use that, or not". The IETF is totally happy to accept what I guess you could call a "donation" of that sort, and it's much less effort. Maybe you take some internal documents, you reassemble them into the rough shape of an RFC, you publish that draft, you get a bunch of feedback about that document, focused on clarifying the explanation, making sure you cover everything required, and so on rather than altering the protocol (which you've maybe already actually shipped in a product) and after maybe 6-12 months you've got a polished RFC ready to publish. If you use a work VPN for example, or a corporate WiFi network that's not just a few home WiFi routers with a more professional SSID and password, you probably end up using protocols Microsoft "donated" in this way, like PEAPv0/EAP-MSCHAPv2 - these protocols are awful but there was no multi-step process where other vendors improve on it and then they eventually reach consensus and publish. Microsoft shipped products that do MSCHAPv1, then wrote it up so that other products could interoperate with Windows, and when they made MSCHAPv2 they followed the same path.

by redant 6y ago

tpmx 6y ago

What other company could have done this? Was the fact that Google controls so much of the entire usage chain (chrome, google.com, youtube.com) irrelevant?

bb88 6y ago
Back in the 90s Microsoft had been rumored to be developing their own proprietary TCP replacement -- back when IIS was the king of the world. They could have shut off a large portion of IIS traffic to those that weren't running Internet Explorer.
- tpmx 6y ago
  Makes sense. I guess they failed because they were too late to the web - Netscape ate their breakfast.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Have anything to read on this?
  - bb88 6y ago
    Apparently, was more than just a rumor. https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2002-June/002456.html https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2002-June/00... https://wiki.c2.com/?MicrosoftPalladium https://wiki.c2.com/?MicrosoftPalladium
- mr_toad 6y ago
  It might have worked if the majority of web servers had been Microsoft’s, but my recollection is they never got close to having the majority of the web server market. The crown went from NCSA to Apache and then only recently to Nginx.
  - bb88 6y ago
    They had the majority of the corporate market at the time.
tialaramex 6y ago
In this specific case only three other companies make web browsers with significant market share (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft), so I guess you could argue only those three companies could have done this particular thing and you're correct that only Google owns Youtube. But more generally companies have written up IETF paperwork for other protocols. Lots of Microsoft protocols have RFCs for example. But one thing that's less common is actually engaging with full-blown IETF working group standards development like Google did here, as opposed to just saying "Look here's the protocol we built, you can use that, or not". The IETF is totally happy to accept what I guess you could call a "donation" of that sort, and it's much less effort. Maybe you take some internal documents, you reassemble them into the rough shape of an RFC, you publish that draft, you get a bunch of feedback about that document, focused on clarifying the explanation, making sure you cover everything required, and so on rather than altering the protocol (which you've maybe already actually shipped in a product) and after maybe 6-12 months you've got a polished RFC ready to publish. If you use a work VPN for example, or a corporate WiFi network that's not just a few home WiFi routers with a more professional SSID and password, you probably end up using protocols Microsoft "donated" in this way, like PEAPv0/EAP-MSCHAPv2 - these protocols are awful but there was no multi-step process where other vendors improve on it and then they eventually reach consensus and publish. Microsoft shipped products that do MSCHAPv1, then wrote it up so that other products could interoperate with Windows, and when they made MSCHAPv2 they followed the same path.