4 ms·

He is no doubt perfectly entitled to rant. I'm also fairly confident that phk has contributed to more important projects vital to the tech ecosystem than I ever

He is no doubt perfectly entitled to rant. I'm also fairly confident that phk has contributed to more important projects vital to the tech ecosystem than I ever will. I simply argue that there are more constructive and productive ways to go about pointing out a protocol's flaws. Phk has had issues with the process for quite some time, and I feel that his embitterment about the process has jaded his view of the protocol. Phk on SPDY/HTTP/2.0 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0815.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/...

jerf 12y ago
"I simply argue that there are more constructive and productive ways to go about pointing out a protocol's flaws." Which he has done: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html It's a pet peeve of mine when people just fling this sort of accusation about as if every word-count limited column isn't any good unless it's 20 times longer and basically includes half of Wikipedia transitively. It's a column in a trade magazine. There isn't a place for a detailed technical discussion there, so complaining that there isn't one is complaining about something that can't be fixed. Besides, cards on the table, I think he's basically correct, cynicism and all here. Sometimes the right answer is to just say no, and failure to say no is not good thing when that is what is called for.
- youngtaff 12y ago
  BTW - that article is two and half years old and there's been a fair amount of work on HTTP/2 since then
- acaloiar 12y ago
  "Which he has done: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html" https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html" You are highlighting my point. The arguments made here are far more pragmatic. My qualms are with how his points are made in the original blog post, not with what points he is making; many of which are quite valid. With that said, the totality of his argument allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Which in my opinion is an invariably flawed position.

jerf 12y ago

"I simply argue that there are more constructive and productive ways to go about pointing out a protocol's flaws." Which he has done: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html It's a pet peeve of mine when people just fling this sort of accusation about as if every word-count limited column isn't any good unless it's 20 times longer and basically includes half of Wikipedia transitively. It's a column in a trade magazine. There isn't a place for a detailed technical discussion there, so complaining that there isn't one is complaining about something that can't be fixed. Besides, cards on the table, I think he's basically correct, cynicism and all here. Sometimes the right answer is to just say no, and failure to say no is not good thing when that is what is called for.

youngtaff 12y ago
BTW - that article is two and half years old and there's been a fair amount of work on HTTP/2 since then
acaloiar 12y ago
"Which he has done: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html" https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html" You are highlighting my point. The arguments made here are far more pragmatic. My qualms are with how his points are made in the original blog post, not with what points he is making; many of which are quite valid. With that said, the totality of his argument allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Which in my opinion is an invariably flawed position.