May 27, 2014 at 18:35Work on HTTP 2.0 suggest starting over
Open source developer Paul-Henning Kamp (Poul-Henning Kamp) called on members of the HTTP Working Group to throw away current developments according to the standard HTTP 2.0.
Paul Henning Kamp is the author of MD5crypt and a large number of system components FreeBSD, GBDE, UFS2, malloc and so on. He believes that the HTTP working group should admit defeat - and start all over again.
As an exemplary debacle, Paul-Henning Kamp gives an example of SPDY. The classic works on project management say that “the prototype of the system always needs to be thrown away”, here Kamp refers to Frederick Brooks and the book “The Mythical Person-Month or How Software Systems Are Created”. According to him, the SPDY protocol adopted as the basis for the HTTP 2.0 specifications is precisely the prototype.
SPDY was accepted even before the working group completed its previous assignment, and then spent a lot of time to bring SPDY to mind, correcting shortcomings and errors.
And then everyone suddenly found that SPDY didn’t even close solve many important problems, for which you would have to resort to some simplification of the HTTP concept itself.
Kamp’s letter was sent in response to the recognition of the chairman of the working group, Mark Nottenham, that “we can’t do everything right in HTTP 2.0, and we still haven’t done everything”, and therefore it was decided to “start discussing HTTP 3.0”. Nottenham emphasizes that the working group is working in tight deadlines, in a hurry.
“Now even the chairman of the working group publicly admits that the result of the work is a partial fiasco and that we will have to replace HTTP 2.0 with something better“ soon ”, Paul-Henning is indignant. - So what exactly do we get from continuing this work? Maybe it’s better to take a deeper look at the current situation with cryptography and the protection of private data than publish a protocol with a cryptographic “patch” that does not solve problems and interferes with many applications? ”
According to the developer, the adoption of the HTTP 2.0 standard only because the deadline has come and it needs to be done according to the procedure, no one needs, but only takes away all the time, leading to additional security risks without any significant benefit.
“Wouldn’t it be faster to immediately begin to solve the real problem - to create a protocol that _can_ replace HTTP 1.1 in all scenarios and really will be an improvement in _all_ scenarios?”, Paul-Henning Kamp asks a rhetorical question. He urges SPDY to be considered an interesting prototype, which clearly showed the need to improve HTTP 1.1, but immediately set about developing a new protocol replacing HTTP 1.1 (taking into account all the SPDY developments).
Paul Henning Kamp is the author of MD5crypt and a large number of system components FreeBSD, GBDE, UFS2, malloc and so on. He believes that the HTTP working group should admit defeat - and start all over again.
As an exemplary debacle, Paul-Henning Kamp gives an example of SPDY. The classic works on project management say that “the prototype of the system always needs to be thrown away”, here Kamp refers to Frederick Brooks and the book “The Mythical Person-Month or How Software Systems Are Created”. According to him, the SPDY protocol adopted as the basis for the HTTP 2.0 specifications is precisely the prototype.
SPDY was accepted even before the working group completed its previous assignment, and then spent a lot of time to bring SPDY to mind, correcting shortcomings and errors.
And then everyone suddenly found that SPDY didn’t even close solve many important problems, for which you would have to resort to some simplification of the HTTP concept itself.
Kamp’s letter was sent in response to the recognition of the chairman of the working group, Mark Nottenham, that “we can’t do everything right in HTTP 2.0, and we still haven’t done everything”, and therefore it was decided to “start discussing HTTP 3.0”. Nottenham emphasizes that the working group is working in tight deadlines, in a hurry.
“Now even the chairman of the working group publicly admits that the result of the work is a partial fiasco and that we will have to replace HTTP 2.0 with something better“ soon ”, Paul-Henning is indignant. - So what exactly do we get from continuing this work? Maybe it’s better to take a deeper look at the current situation with cryptography and the protection of private data than publish a protocol with a cryptographic “patch” that does not solve problems and interferes with many applications? ”
According to the developer, the adoption of the HTTP 2.0 standard only because the deadline has come and it needs to be done according to the procedure, no one needs, but only takes away all the time, leading to additional security risks without any significant benefit.
“Wouldn’t it be faster to immediately begin to solve the real problem - to create a protocol that _can_ replace HTTP 1.1 in all scenarios and really will be an improvement in _all_ scenarios?”, Paul-Henning Kamp asks a rhetorical question. He urges SPDY to be considered an interesting prototype, which clearly showed the need to improve HTTP 1.1, but immediately set about developing a new protocol replacing HTTP 1.1 (taking into account all the SPDY developments).