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

Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:38:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFWmRJ3+CWbYRB+VXkfHUM_AddYLakeHNw80+RwNzDu0hfTRJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

thanks for your answers, as usual very informative and helpful in
summarizing what happened in the past.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> It’s great that Jetty is implementing now — welcome! — but characterising your objections plus that of other folks who haven’t implemented as an expert group vs. the editors’ whims is hugely disrespectful of the nearly 20 other implementations that have spent nearly two years working on this, not to mention the effort of the editors.

I did not mean to be disrespectful, I am sorry if it sounded so.

> At the risk of repeating myself — most of the implementers are currently being quiet, both because they’re busy getting -13 up to scratch, and frankly I suspect that they don’t want to re-hash the discussion yet again, after doing it for two years (and sometimes more). While this is new to you, it’s well-worn territory for most of the WG, and this is not a random decision by the editors.
> As part of the next implementation draft and WGLC, we will assess how well CONTINUATION is implemented, and any problems that it brings. If it's found lacking, we’ll discuss alternatives. At this moment, though, we’re not in a place where we’re going to abandon a feature or re-engineer the protocol without cause; so far CONTINUATION has *not* come up as a problem in the substantial body of running code that we have.
> Having said all of that, I’d very much like to hear from other implementers what the current status of their CONTINUATION support is, and what testing plans they have for it.

I find strange that the debate that sparked recently about
CONTINUATION leaves those who like them so silent.
I as well would like to hear why others think CONTINUATION as
currently defined is better than what recently proposed, but I guess
if they did not show up recently they probably won't.

Just in case it happens, you would interpret total silence from those
who currently like/implemented CONTINUATION as it is defined now as a
validation of the protocol as is, so that any alternative proposal
about CONTINUATION to be shipped before last call would be rejected ?

Thanks !

Simone Bordet
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 11:38:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC