W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Straw-man for our next charter

From: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAPAK-7+7t9oVvb9FoD1b8mdb4WZ9diz=KDs8_BG3UwzSq8C=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "adrien@qbik.com" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Right. If we make sure the semantics are consistent and the same between
connections of interest then, that allows us to verify them (each one of
them). We shouldn't have to always do that verification step or consistency
check so manually, especially when there is less costly automation. The
implementation or, more on overall topic, brief specifications of such
automation is not change in said semantics even if it implies change to
their perceivable weight.

On Monday, July 30, 2012, Larry Masinter wrote:

> oddly, the subject of this thread is "our next charter" and my discussion
> is about what the next charter should say. So I'm bewildered by your
> repeating that you think my comment is out of order,
> The use case given for limiting semantics changes  is to enable 1.1 <-->
> 2:0 gateways.  Adaptations which can be handled in gateways should be in
> scope for consideration, if they meet other HTTP/2 goals.
> -----Original message-----
> *From: *Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'w3c@adambarth.com');>>*
> To: *Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'masinter@adobe.com');>>*
> Cc: *"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'adrien@qbik.com');>>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'ietf-http-wg@w3.org');>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'ietf-http-wg@w3.org');>>*
> Sent: *Mon, Jul 30, 2012 07:58:59 GMT+00:00*
> Subject: *Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter
>  On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'masinter@adobe.com');>>
> wrote:
> > HTTP 2.0 can tighten requirements where loose interpretation in HTTP 1.x
> leads to performance, reliability, security problems.
> Where does the charter say that?  My reading of the charter is that
> "changes to the existing semantics of HTTP are out of scope."
> Adam
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 14:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:03 UTC