On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> 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to the effect that long-polling is a temporary hack that emerged from the applications community and will hopefully be superseded by technologies that aren't so abusive of HTTP.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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
