Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

[Roberto Peon <fenix at google.com>]

I guess I can't just lurk today!

Actually for SPDY we're trying to do a lot of experimentation (i.e. research) and then we'll figure out what the standard needs to be.

Until we know it is actually better *and why*, it is not useful to waste people's time discussing a standard.

Were we to do it the other way around (set a standard, and then do research), things would be unlikely to work well.. what else would you have us do?

We're even being public about it, with open source implementations for something which will be backwards compatible with what exists today...

Honestly, if it worked, I'd happily use a different port (currently we're wanting to use port 443 and it *is* an encrypted channel), but we have data that shows that this doesn't work reliably.

It seems like the network has ossified a bit, and it is hard to get any changes out there.

-=R

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw at webtide.com> wrote:

Ian Hickson wrote:
> Instead, what's happened is the equivalent of me talking to some of the
> people working on HTTP, and then saying "ok we'll do HTTP on a new mailing
> list" and not even letting the HTTP working group know about it.

Hello!!!!    Google has done exactly that!    SPDY!

 http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/


Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesomely great that google is doing
such research.   But google has to be aware that their market power
makes them a poor community player.    If chrome suddenly started
shipping with SPDY enabled by default, then that would effectively
be a hostile takeover of HTTP.

As google has done exactly this with websocket, it shows that they
have no  concerns about doing a non consensus based takeover of
port 80, so why not takeover the entire web protocol as well.


You talk as if the IETF is trying to do the take over.

The  reality is that the IETF has had custodianship of the internet
protocols since day dot, and it is Google^H^H^H^H^H^HWhatWG that is
trying to take over the job of creating new internet standards.
Maybe that was warranted in the case of HTML5 and the W3C, but I see
no evidence that IETF deserves to be usurped when it comes to
their role regarding internet protocols.


regards

_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi