GFE of course will implement BLOCKED as well.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:34 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> [ If you're on the To: line, please respond to the question below --
>> 'yes', 'no' or "don't know/care/plan to implement" is fine ]
>>
>
> Yes - Chromium plans to implement.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Apr 2014, at 7:10 am, Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH) <
>> Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On April 17 2014 11:37 PM, <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There's been a lot of discussion of this issue, but (predictably) no
>> more data.
>> >>
>> >> As indicated earlier, I think the best way to decide about this
>> proposal is to
>> >> get some operational experience with it, and one way to do that is to
>> include
>> >> it in the next implementation draft with a note to the effect that
>> it's an "at
>> >> risk" feature -- i.e. we'll pull it in the next draft if we don't
>> agree to keep it in
>> >> NYC.
>> >>
>> >> Please comment on this in the next ~3 days; if we don't hear convincing
>> >> arguments as to why this is a bad idea, we'll follow that plan.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Two comments:
>> >
>> > 1. Practical. Are there multiple implementations committed to
>> implementing and experimenting with this feature to gain the operational
>> experience? My sense was that most responses were neutral/skeptical and not
>> planning to implement. We would not implement in Katana.
>>
>> That's a good question.
>>
>> Implementers on the To: line -- if BLOCKED is included in the next
>> implementation draft, will you implement it and give feedback to let us
>> make this decision?
>>
>>
>> > 2. Philosophical. If HTTP/2-12 is intended to be the (almost) last
>> implementation draft prior to WGLC, then let's raise the bar, become more
>> ruthless, and only consider critical features and design changes going
>> forward. For example, is revisiting -
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0242.html -
>> a previous decision - https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/260 -
>> critical or "preferable" (nice-to-have)?
>>
>> I see I forgot to send my reply to that thread; it will appear
>> momentarily.
>>
>>
>> > We've successfully executed to this point based by being data-driven
>> (header compression bake-off) and date-driven (aggressive schedule in
>> charter, intensive interim meetings). I'd hate to lose our momentum and
>> continue to slip. Can we channel the energy and unproven ideas into the
>> HTTP/3 wish list and stabilize HTTP/2?
>>
>> That's where we're going, yes. We have a few issues to clean up and we'll
>> hopefully get there. I think BLOCKED deserves some consideration because
>> it's been asserted it can help deploy the protocol and get feedback about
>> its operation; if HTTP/2 falls on its face because people get flow control
>> wrong all of the time, HTTP/3 will be harder to do.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>