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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 15:32:32 -0500
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <683A8E2F-2DC7-4BC0-BCD1-95E28E65E4D0@redhat.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>

On Jul 1, 2014, at 3:00 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:

> Let's be clear here - we don't want to have a spec that doesn't mirror reality. If the spec says that something is a core feature, then it's terrible for it to fail to interop depending on which implementation you are speaking to.
> I think it's a completely fair argument to discuss whether or not CONTINUATION frames should be a core feature in the spec, or punted off to be negotiated instead or something. But *if* we keep it as a core part of the spec, it really must work, and I think it'd be healthy for the ecosystem if major implementations moved first to exercise as much of the spec as possible in order to prevent these kinds of interop issues from appearing.
> Please don't hijack this thread to make your debates about CONTINUATION frames. There are plenty of other threads for that already.

How is this hijacking your thread? You used CONTINUATION as a specific example, and as far as I can tell it was the impetus. 

Although my point isn’t specific to CONTINUATION. My point is simply that if you are going to create some compliance black/white list, you need to ensure that you have fair criteria, and that also means ensuring various open ended aspects of the specs (such as allowing infinite data) are changed to specify the constraints you intend to enforce. Otherwise the its a purely subjective matter.

Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 20:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:35 UTC