- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 19:20:07 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Having not been a fan of the reference set from the onset (I argued *long ago* that it should just go away) I'm definitely +1 on Jeff's proposal. (of course, I'd MUCH rather see *stateful* header compression get tossed out entirely). Also.. +1 on Greg's proposal re: larger frame sizes and dropping CONTINUATION entirely. +1 on PHK's proposal to allow negotiation of header compression scheme I would also take a moment to reflect on the fact that HPACK is not actually required for HTTP/2 to meet it's chartered goals. I know there are arguments that say that header compression makes multiplexing better, but that doesn't mean that (a) it has to be HPACK and (b) that it has to be stateful. The overwhelming majority of the problems currently being discussed simply vanish if we eliminate the idea that header transmission could, in any way, modify connection state. - James On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Everyone, > > I think we're getting very close to consensus on Greg (et al)'s proposal, so clarity here would be appreciated. > > Please be specific about what you like about this proposal -- > > a) Getting rid of the reference set (Jeff's "1", maybe "4") is a good idea, and complementary to Greg (et al)'s proposal > b) This complete set of changes is a preferable alternative to Greg (et al)'s proposal > c) Don't know, need to talk more. > > Thanks, >[snip]
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 02:20:54 UTC