3 ms·

why does google need to come up with protocols? does the IETF and other processes in place for over a decade not work for them? I know nothing of the protocol (

by pyvpx 14y ago

why does google need to come up with protocols? does the IETF and other processes in place for over a decade not work for them? I know nothing of the protocol (the link only mentions the 'cheeky' naming scheme and the source in the chrome tree); I'm merely commenting on googles motives...

leothekim 14y ago
In general, NIH is a way of life at Google. Still, they solve problems at a variety and scale s.t. I can understand their tendency to work this way.
avar 14y ago
How do you think things get proposed to organizations like the IETF? Someone comes up with a working implementation, proves it to work & to be better than the existing stuff, and then they propose it for inclusion. That's what Google is doing, and they're using Google Chrome as their test bed (along presumably, with a bunch of non-Chrome stuff internally). This is the same thing they did with SPDY. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#Relation_to_HTTP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#Relation_to_HTTP for details. If what you're hinting at is that they should first start some wider discussion about what a next-gen UDP should look like before they start doing anything, then I suggest you look up "bikeshedding". Such a process would never get anywhere.
- pyvpx 14y ago
  I appreciate their initiative and their wealth of engineering talent. I completely get what you're saying -- someone has to propose it; and a usable reference implementation is all the better. Unfortunately it seems, given Googles mammoth size, that many folks who might otherwise chime in simply shrug and go "oh, Google has already solved/implemented/popularized a solution" and move on.
  - wmf 14y ago
    That's not happening with SPDY, WebRTC, Dart, or WebP. Google's competitors are going over these proposals with the proverbial fine-toothed comb. I get the impression that people are extra skeptical of Google standards because of the potential to get steamrolled.
packetslave 14y ago
Disclaimer: I don't work anywhere near the QUIC, SPDY, or other protocol guys. I heard someone here in a express it this way at a techtalk when asked about the motive for doing things like SPDY (paraphrased): "We want the web to be as fast as possible for EVERYBODY. So some of us are building things like SPDY since we can implement it both the server and browser for Chrome users. Meanwhile, other folks are working to make the web faster for non-Chrome and mobile users too (PageSpeed, our public DNS, paying people like Steve Souders to do performance research, etc.)"

by pyvpx 14y ago

leothekim 14y ago

In general, NIH is a way of life at Google. Still, they solve problems at a variety and scale s.t. I can understand their tendency to work this way.

avar 14y ago

How do you think things get proposed to organizations like the IETF? Someone comes up with a working implementation, proves it to work & to be better than the existing stuff, and then they propose it for inclusion. That's what Google is doing, and they're using Google Chrome as their test bed (along presumably, with a bunch of non-Chrome stuff internally). This is the same thing they did with SPDY. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#Relation_to_HTTP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#Relation_to_HTTP for details. If what you're hinting at is that they should first start some wider discussion about what a next-gen UDP should look like before they start doing anything, then I suggest you look up "bikeshedding". Such a process would never get anywhere.

pyvpx 14y ago
I appreciate their initiative and their wealth of engineering talent. I completely get what you're saying -- someone has to propose it; and a usable reference implementation is all the better. Unfortunately it seems, given Googles mammoth size, that many folks who might otherwise chime in simply shrug and go "oh, Google has already solved/implemented/popularized a solution" and move on.
- wmf 14y ago
  That's not happening with SPDY, WebRTC, Dart, or WebP. Google's competitors are going over these proposals with the proverbial fine-toothed comb. I get the impression that people are extra skeptical of Google standards because of the potential to get steamrolled.

packetslave 14y ago

Disclaimer: I don't work anywhere near the QUIC, SPDY, or other protocol guys. I heard someone here in a express it this way at a techtalk when asked about the motive for doing things like SPDY (paraphrased): "We want the web to be as fast as possible for EVERYBODY. So some of us are building things like SPDY since we can implement it both the server and browser for Chrome users. Meanwhile, other folks are working to make the web faster for non-Chrome and mobile users too (PageSpeed, our public DNS, paying people like Steve Souders to do performance research, etc.)"