Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:47:51 -0700

On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is real example of protocol abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for
> this and doesn't do this properly.

Which is why folks who are currently using long-polling techniques are
actively contributing to the HYBI WG.

> The draft is non-judgmental,
> and that might be a mistake.

The draft is Informational and therefore isn't really in a position to pass
judgments. All it is trying to say is: we know that long-polling techniques
have many issues, but if you're going to use these techniques then at least
try to do so with some modicum of intelligence. We're making the best of a
bad situation, and if the HYBI WG is successful then hopefully people won't
feel the need for long-polling techniques in the future.

> Personally, if I was in the IESG,
> I'd be considering a "holding my nose" ABSTAIN ballot

I'll be balloting RECUSE.

> unless some 
> text stating that the methods described are really bad ideas
> was added.

I'd have no problem with adding a sentence or two to the effect that
long-polling is a temporary hack that emerged from the applications
community and will hopefully be superseded by technologies that aren't so
abusive of HTTP. I'll confer with my co-authors about wordsmithing, if they
agree that it's a good idea to add such text.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:39:54 +1300

Peter,

Thanks for the background. Indeed, a sentence or two about this being
a temporary approach, as you suggest, would be very helpful.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:43:38 -0700

On re-reading the introduction, I realize that the authors were too close to
the material to state the obvious fact you have pointed out. Ah, the beauty
of cross-area review. :)

I'll work with my co-authors to fix this.

---

From: Stefano Salsano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:23:57 +0100

as a co-author, I understand the concerns raised by Brian and I agree 
with Peter's proposals to address them

We can clarify that the goal of this draft is not to endorse the 
long-polling techniques (but rather to present the known issues and the 
  counter-measures that try to mitigate these issues)

I do think we should not go further and add a judgemental statement 
along the line of Brian's comment ("This is real example of protocol 
abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for this and doesn't do this properly")

but I think that we can more neutrally add a sentence stating that the 
proposed techniques stretch the original semantic of HTTP and that the 
HTTP protocol was not designed for this use... which is a fact rather 
than a judgement.

Stefano

-- 
*******************************************************************
Stefano Salsano
Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica
Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Via del Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY

http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/

E-mail  : [email-masked]
Cell.   : +39 320 4307310
Office  : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770  (Fax.) +39 06 72597435
*******************************************************************

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:45:04 -0700

Yes, I completely agree with that approach. Let's leave the judgments for
others...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:02:48 +1300

I agree. It may be time for RFC3205bis, but that's a whole
other discussion.

Thanks
   Brian Carpenter