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

Re: Dealing with BLOCKED

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:34:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_j+JtE-CqUiCfzAhN_yX16DD8qBX-LYT1CcCkBq7WR8iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Hasan Khalil <mian.hasan.khalil@gmail.com>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, jxc k <block.rxckin.beats@gmail.com>, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, matsumoto_r@net.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, "Flack, Martin" <mflack@akamai.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Will implement if it is in the spec.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Yes, I will implement BLOCKED.
> I wish we should have had it more earlier because I had several bugs of
> flow control in the past interops.
> Adding a new frame is easier for me rather than adding a new semantic.
> (2014/04/19 15:35), Mark Nottingham 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 ]
>> 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/
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 23:34:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC