3 ms·

> ...a thing that lots of parties want and have worked together to make So, a) what parties? b) what exactly did they contribute? Look, yeah, it's a good thi

> ...a thing that lots of parties want and have worked together to make So, a) what parties? b) what exactly did they contribute? Look, yeah, it's a good thing that standards still exist and Google has to play social engineering games instead of suddenly dropping this stuff on us as a fait accompli. But let's not pretend like Google doesn't own the Internet; it'll save us grief and tears in the future if we see things clearly as they are.

chrismorgan 6y ago
It’s all on public record; take a look in the relevant IETF working group. There are quite a large number of parties that have made meaningful contributions, and I’m too lazy to find and enumerate any. And in line with my linked comment, Google engineers want those contributions, as the end result of such collaboration is consistently significantly superior to what was developed by one party alone. Google is not strong-arming IETF into doing things. There’s widespread (though certainly not universal) consensus that QUIC or an equivalent is a worthy goal, and worth collaborating on to achieve that end. Look, I wanted something like QUIC before they produced it, because HTTP/2 was better than HTTP/1.1 in most ways, but had the critical TCP HOLB problem that makes it markedly worse than HTTP/1.1 in some situations—and something like QUIC is the only way of fixing that, since the SCTP approach is no longer socially viable. (And before that, I had long wanted something like HTTP/2, because the limitations of HTTP/1.1 were sometimes rather frustrating. —Though I must confess that I wasn’t immediately taken with SPDY and the particular way Google pushed it initially.) Google doesn’t own the internet. Let it go. Yes, they have an unhealthily large influence on consumer matters—but also nowhere near as large in infrastructural. Google were the ones to advance the initial SPDY and QUIC proposals because their position as massive server operators and manufacturers of a popular browser meant that they were simply the company best-suited to making such initial development (and sure, it served their interests well too).

chrismorgan 6y ago

It’s all on public record; take a look in the relevant IETF working group. There are quite a large number of parties that have made meaningful contributions, and I’m too lazy to find and enumerate any. And in line with my linked comment, Google engineers want those contributions, as the end result of such collaboration is consistently significantly superior to what was developed by one party alone. Google is not strong-arming IETF into doing things. There’s widespread (though certainly not universal) consensus that QUIC or an equivalent is a worthy goal, and worth collaborating on to achieve that end. Look, I wanted something like QUIC before they produced it, because HTTP/2 was better than HTTP/1.1 in most ways, but had the critical TCP HOLB problem that makes it markedly worse than HTTP/1.1 in some situations—and something like QUIC is the only way of fixing that, since the SCTP approach is no longer socially viable. (And before that, I had long wanted something like HTTP/2, because the limitations of HTTP/1.1 were sometimes rather frustrating. —Though I must confess that I wasn’t immediately taken with SPDY and the particular way Google pushed it initially.) Google doesn’t own the internet. Let it go. Yes, they have an unhealthily large influence on consumer matters—but also nowhere near as large in infrastructural. Google were the ones to advance the initial SPDY and QUIC proposals because their position as massive server operators and manufacturers of a popular browser meant that they were simply the company best-suited to making such initial development (and sure, it served their interests well too).