Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

On 2 Jul 2014, at 7:23 pm, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:

> Le Mar 1 juillet 2014 08:55, Mark Nottingham a �crit :
> Mark,
> 
>> I appreciate you're concerned about the CONTINUATION issue, but using it
>> to derail other discussions isn't appropriate.
> 
> In the defence of PHK he seems to be the only one defending the http users
> at large and not the subset present here

Sorry, nobody gets to wear the mantle of �I defend the users." That�s too easy.


>> Also, emotive language like "bogus misfeatures" and "blackmail" doesn't
>> help make decisions; it's just a distraction. Please refrain.
> 
> Because
>> In order to prevent the extension mechanism from failing (due to
>> intermediaries whitelisting extensions and disallowing all others, or some
>> other sort of brokenness)
> 
> is not emotive and a distraction?

Um, yeah.


> Do you not understand still that websocket and other attempts to force
> some classes of traffic through security equipments didn't fail because of
> some technical default in those equipments, but because those equipments
> were deployed to block those classes of traffic in the first place? And
> that any attempt to force the issue in http2 will result in the same
> outcome for this new protocol?

I understand that. 

These arguments are perfectly valid, and indeed may carry the day (in this case particularly, since I can�t see there being any normative outcome agreed upon).

What I�m not willing to tolerate is the continuing degradation of the discussion into point-scoring, personal attacks and assumptions of ill intent by one�s opposition. It has no place here. For example, you didn�t need to start that paragraph with �Do you not understand�� That�s needlessly aggressive; just make the argument without impugning my ability to understand it.

BTW, the above is not a particular comment on PHK�s participation, BTW � it�s about what seems to be a growing trend in the discussion.


> And BTW, in what way PHK's characterisation of
>> A vendor that owned both an auto-updating client and popular website
>> could enforce this.
> 
> is not perfectly accurate?

Yep.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 10:26:55 UTC