- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:19:35 +1000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 Jun 2014, at 5:17 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > I accept that the WG probably has to move on and that we can't iterate on this argument forever. Thanks. > But please don't say there has been convergence. Several implementors have spoken here saying that they will not support continuations, so the current draft rather than supporting arbitrary large headers has actually enforced even worse support for them in deployed implementations. That's a wrinkle that needs to play out; I'll be interested to see how interop happens, and whether we need to change text or revisit decisions as a result. My biggest concern right now is that talking doesn't make the situation any clearer at this point, but it does block us from implementing and deploying it to get the experience we need. Cheers, > > > > > On 27 June 2014 09:07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I think this discussion has converged upon not making any changes to the HTTP/2 spec, but allowing experimentation to take place in a "jumbo" extension. > > As such, I'm going to close the issue. If implementation and deployment experience in the next round leads us to think differently, we can revisit the question, of course. > > Cheers, > > P.S. If anyone wants to launch an extension draft, please say so; I'm happy to coordinate that through the WG. > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 07:20:03 UTC