Re: #541: CONTINUATION

My preference is

0) the status quo

and I can't live with 1, 2 and 3 as already noted in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/1779.html

(2014/07/02 20:12), Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/541>
>
> There’s been strong pushback on the current design of CONTINUATION from some interested parties, and a few implementers. Despite the fact that this design is the result of multiple meetings demonstrating strong consensus, and the fact that we have a schedule-focused charter, this issue deserves a good hearing.
>
> I think everyone now has an idea of the issues and trade-offs involved, as well as the potential end-games. We also helpfully have a few proposals on how to move forward:
>
> 0) the status quo
>
> 1) <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/544> and variants thereof (e.g., not including CONTINUATION in flow control; alternative syntaxes)
>
> 2) limiting header sizes to 16K (HPACK’d) in HTTP/2, as per PHK’s suggestion
>
> There’s also another implicit option;
>
> 3) We can’t know until we get substantial interop and deployment experience with draft-13.
>
> I’d like to ask the implementers (as identified on the CC: line) what their preferences are, and what they can’t live with. If there’s another option, please say so, but only if it’s materially different, and you believe it has a chance of achieving consensus.
>
> To be clear, if you don’t say that you can’t live with something, it means that it’s an acceptable outcome. If you do, be prepared to back up such a strong stance with an equally strong argument.
>
> Note that this is input to help determine consensus, not a vote.
>
> Thanks,
>
> P.S. Please keep in mind that (3) is not “wait until September, then decide it’s too late.” Achieving a reasonable consensus now is relatively pain-free, if possible; deadlocking right before we (want to) ship is something I want to avoid.
>
> P.P.S. To anticipate some responses, a generic “jumbo frame” is off the table for this discussion; doing so doesn’t appear to have broad support, and there are strong arguments against it.
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:32:03 UTC