Re: #541: CONTINUATION

Keith,

On 2 Jul 2014, at 9:29 pm, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> What counts as an implementer?

Someone who’s listed on <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Implementations> with a reasonably current version.

> Is there an IETF rule that only implementers count toward consensus?

No… as I very clearly said, “Note that this is input to help determine consensus, not a vote.”

Specifically, we want rough consensus and running code; this question is trying to determine where the running code will be.

Kind regards,

P.S. I probably should have done a reply-to on that message; please be kind to your fellow WG members and strip the CC. Thanks.



> 
> -keith
> 
> 
> On Wednesday,02 July 2014 13:12, mnot@mnot.net 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:35:23 UTC