W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: Working Group Last Call The ORIGIN HTTP/2 Frame

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 09:12:13 -0700
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Message-Id: <6A9E42E3-2CFD-4C9A-B5EC-C6F3C50526C5@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
I'm not hearing wild enthusiasm for this, so I'm going to drop the PR.


> On 27 Sep 2017, at 7:23 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I'm OK either way here; it's attractive to have a deadline for knowing whether the connection is under the ORIGIN model (first SETTINGS), but I'm also a bit nervous about introducing such a big change relatively late in the day.
> Put another way - does anyone think that this is clearly better than the current spec and needs to get in?
> PR here (still needs some work if we want to adopt):
>  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/406
>> On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:48 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not going to object to the setting - it just seems it doesn't really
>>> address the fact that the client is going to see both 7540 rules and ORIGIN
>>> rules at some point on the same connection so there's not a lot of point to
>>> it imo.
>> I see your point.  It narrows, but doesn't eliminate the window of
>> uncertainty and as a result it isn't that much use to you.
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2017 16:12:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 November 2017 00:14:13 UTC