- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:42:09 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-12-06 08:07, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:00, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> If it turns out to be compatible, then we'll work something out. >> >> [..] Plotting out a path for compatible >> changes doesn't really add value. That said, feel free to propose >> something. > > Clearly, if we already knew what needs to be changed, we’d do it now. > So this is preparing for the unknown. Not necessarily. There are several changes which only make sense in a pure-2.0 end-to-end connection. Such as dropping Cookies and converting Session Cookie values to a HTTP layer frame header. We cannot do this at all right now, but can prepare 2.0 extension points for defining it in a 2.1 update in 5-20 years time. > I don’t agree that spending a few cycles on thinking about this would > not add value. > However, it also seems to me that SETTINGS already provides a good way > forward for this kind of smooth evolution. > If people share the gut feeling that that’s true, the needed cycles > may already have been spent. +1. We need to concentrate on making 2.0 more efficient without the compression overheads, and work on updating/replacing RFC 2660 with 2.0 mechanisms. Amos
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 22:42:32 UTC