@bagder@nytpu agreed. that was one of the most frustrating bikeshedding decisions. Nobody chiming in really understood the complexity of the URI spec or the implications of what they were proposing, and it went totally against the other goals of the project.
Using TLS, for instance, was chosen because library support was so common and accessible it lowered the barrier to server and client creation. Tweaking URL parsing made things harder without any tangible benefit.
I hope that gets scrapped, personally. And yes, carving the spec into 2 (protocol and document format) has been discussed already and piloted. It just hasn't made its way back to the official living document. That would help as well.
Where I think we'll probably see more pushback is on TOFU (I fully support DANE, but DNSSEC is still such a barrier), and chunking. There's a major philosophy of 1-request-per-document which seems antithetical to chunking.
Regardless, all 100% valid criticism and from one of the most reputable sources. I'm sure the whole community will be discussing this for weeks to come. Cheers!
@bagder@nytpu agreed. that was one of the most frustrating bikeshedding decisions. Nobody chiming in really understood the complexity of the URI spec or the implications of what they were proposing, and it went totally against the other goals of the project.
Using TLS, for instance, was chosen because library support was so common and accessible it lowered the barrier to server and client creation. Tweaking URL parsing made things harder without any tangible benefit.
@tomasino@nytpu in fact, using plain old CA is the *least* complex and most established system and way more secure than TOFU...
Thanks for the comment. I fully understand that my views and opinions may not align very well with many of the people in and fans of the Gemini project.
Gregory's Server
@bagder @nytpu agreed. that was one of the most frustrating bikeshedding decisions. Nobody chiming in really understood the complexity of the URI spec or the implications of what they were proposing, and it went totally against the other goals of the project.
Using TLS, for instance, was chosen because library support was so common and accessible it lowered the barrier to server and client creation. Tweaking URL parsing made things harder without any tangible benefit.
I hope that gets scrapped, personally. And yes, carving the spec into 2 (protocol and document format) has been discussed already and piloted. It just hasn't made its way back to the official living document. That would help as well.
Where I think we'll probably see more pushback is on TOFU (I fully support DANE, but DNSSEC is still such a barrier), and chunking. There's a major philosophy of 1-request-per-document which seems antithetical to chunking.
Regardless, all 100% valid criticism and from one of the most reputable sources. I'm sure the whole community will be discussing this for weeks to come. Cheers!
@bagder @nytpu agreed. that was one of the most frustrating bikeshedding decisions. Nobody chiming in really understood the complexity of the URI spec or the implications of what they were proposing, and it went totally against the other goals of the project.
Using TLS, for instance, was chosen because library support was so common and accessible it lowered the barrier to server and client creation. Tweaking URL parsing made things harder without any tangible benefit.