W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #603: Frame layout

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:09:44 +0000
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
CC: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D04EECBF.3A834%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
On 9/29/14, 4:46 AM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>In message <alpine.DEB.2.00.1409291020520.23213@tvnag.unkk.fr>, Daniel
> writes:
>>I think we should put this suggestion in the queue of things to do with
>>binary format if we for some reason are lead into changing the format
>>for some 
>>other and more important reason. I don't think these stated motivations
>>enough to (yet again) break the binary format.
>I continually amazes me that backwards compatibility with a handful
>of prototype implementations is used as an argument against improving
>the successor to the worlds most widely used protocol.


I'm implementing HTTP/2 because I believe it will be successful, widely
used, efficient, and long-lasting.  At this stage, if there are changes
that can be made to increase those qualities, I will _gladly_ update my

If someone is implementing a draft, they should be willing to update that
implementation until the standard is finalized.  Otherwise, they should
wait to implement.

Granted, I haven't been actively participating from the beginning and may
be missing out on the fatigue, but my experience thus far has been
resistance to any real change.  To me ironic, since I waited this long to
implement as I knew I only had so many cycles..
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 15:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC