httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: W3C <-> Apache
Date Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:57:11 GMT
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> That is why I am very concerned about the recent leaks of information onto
> this mailing list that I rightfully understand have made you upset. The
> information that I have seen go by did not represent HTTP-NG in a rightful
> way. I would be happy to help in any way that I can but it requires that
> somebody from the Apache group signs up to participate.

While the gooals may be fine, the method has serious flaws from where I

By saying that anyone who has any access to know anything about the
protocol (even knowning a couple of words about what it does and what sort
of rough timelines are being considered appears to be forbidden knowledge) 
needs to devote most of their time to it you ensure that you have no one
involved in any way who is currently firmly planted in the real world of
the here and now of the web.  No insult intended, but however much
background you have you end up with a very different view when you devote
most of your time to thinking up new schemes instead of spending most of
your time trying to hack together the existing ones to work.  You have no
way for the people who are implementing protocols right now and who will
have to implement this new protocol if it is released to have any concept
of what will happen.  There is no room for early feedback from
implementors and no room for those implementors to be sure they are moving
in a general direction to be able to have the framework to implement the

While I fully understand the necessity of keeping the number of people
involved at a minimum and to have them actually be constructive in order
to progress at a reasonable speed, you can only go so far before you
progress at a wonderful speed on something that is useless.

> If you do not think that 50% is a reasonable or practical amount of
> participation then we have another forum called the HTTP-NG Interest Group
> where participation isn't constrained to participation but of course the
> impact on the project is lower.

Erm... I'm afraid I must be missing wherever or whatever this group may

Right now, HTTP sucks.  Badly.  This is no insult to the people who put a
lot of good effort into making it what it is today, but simply a
reflection of the fact that it has gone a lot further than it was
originally designed for.  There are some serious changes that are required
to ensure it can work efficiently and cooperate well with networks in
addition to filling the needs of the user.  If there is no observable
movement in that directly with HTTP-NG (and, from the perspective of
anyone who can't devote their life to it, there isn't), you will end up
with people trying to do their own thing.  That does no one any good. 

I don't know what stage the HTTP-NG work is at, I don't know if there is
anything that could be made known about it yet, I don't know what the
plans are for doing that, but I do know that it doesn't look very
promising from where I sit, and my network isn't happy at the thought of
having to keep digesting HTTP/1.[01] traffic forever.  It is running out
of tums.

AFAIK, the current Apache core has no hope in hell of implementing
presumed parts of HTTP-NG like MUX without serious changes to the process
model.  While these changes are planned anyway, there can be no conceptual
planning to be sure the two can match up right--and avoiding yet another
major set of changes when HTTP-NG does magically appear.

View raw message