4 ms·

I am so glad there is at least one prominent name advocating this line, because I feel like this quote from another IETF discussion is becoming more and more re

I am so glad there is at least one prominent name advocating this line, because I feel like this quote from another IETF discussion is becoming more and more relevant: > Is there an IETF process in place for "The work we're doing would harm the Internet so maybe we should stop?" - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/current/msg00238.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/current/msg00238.... HTTP/2.0 has been rammed through much faster than is reasonable for the next revision of the bedrock of the web. It was always clearly a single-bid tender for ideas, with the call for proposals geared towards SPDY and the timeline too short for any reasonable possibility of a competitive idea to come up. There has never been any good reason that SPDY could not co-evolve with HTTP as it had already been doing quite successfully. If it was truly the next-step it would have been clear soon enough. All jamming it through to HTTP/2.0 does is create a barrier for entry for similar co-evolved ideas to come about and compete on even footing.

youngtaff 12y ago
PHK has always been skeptical of HTTP/2 & SPDY He wants radical change in the protocol but when given the opportunity submitted a (by his own admission) half baked proposal - there's also the question of what a protocol like HTTP/2 means for his product. Although HTTP/2 started from SPDY it has evolved, and in different ways e.g. see the framing comments from the thread the OP links to. We need a better protocol for the web now, yes we could wait around longer for more discussion but where did that get us with HTTP/1.1 - I'd be quite happy if IETF had just adopted SPDY lock, stock and barrel (and no I don't work for Google)
- stormbrew 12y ago
  I'm aware that he's always been skeptical, I saw his posts as my own excitement over the idea of HTTP/2.0 died on the vine from being subscribed to the WG mailing list. There has never and will never be a point in time where we don't need "a better protocol for the web now." The issue is that canonization was unnecessary, adoption of spdy has been progressing fine without it. And HTTP/2 diverging significantly from spdy does not inspire confidence, either. Rather it just reminds of a famous xkcd [1]and again begs the question of whether trying to turn spdy into http/2 even manages to achieve any of the goals the process was setting out for. The whole thing just seems like a big fat SNAFU. [1] http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/

youngtaff 12y ago

PHK has always been skeptical of HTTP/2 & SPDY He wants radical change in the protocol but when given the opportunity submitted a (by his own admission) half baked proposal - there's also the question of what a protocol like HTTP/2 means for his product. Although HTTP/2 started from SPDY it has evolved, and in different ways e.g. see the framing comments from the thread the OP links to. We need a better protocol for the web now, yes we could wait around longer for more discussion but where did that get us with HTTP/1.1 - I'd be quite happy if IETF had just adopted SPDY lock, stock and barrel (and no I don't work for Google)

stormbrew 12y ago
I'm aware that he's always been skeptical, I saw his posts as my own excitement over the idea of HTTP/2.0 died on the vine from being subscribed to the WG mailing list. There has never and will never be a point in time where we don't need "a better protocol for the web now." The issue is that canonization was unnecessary, adoption of spdy has been progressing fine without it. And HTTP/2 diverging significantly from spdy does not inspire confidence, either. Rather it just reminds of a famous xkcd [1]and again begs the question of whether trying to turn spdy into http/2 even manages to achieve any of the goals the process was setting out for. The whole thing just seems like a big fat SNAFU. [1] http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/