- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:35:48 -0400
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Kinkie <gkinkie@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I’m only hearing PHK and Kinkie argue for this, and the people I’m seeing F2F in Toronto are against it. Considering how big of a change this is, I don’t think there’s enough support to get it over the wall. Anyone else want to stand up for it? On 21 Jul 2014, at 10:19 am, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <CA+Y8hcPt1RZfhV3NmqiPdmfNN_=nSn1v_KOrpGiZ1UYJBu_g4A@mail.gmail.com> > , Kinkie writes: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: >>> Generally I think this is unnecessary - HTTP depends on "reliable" transport (TCP as defined) so we probably don't need this for frames generally. >> >> To me the most obvious advantage is not about data corrupted/lost by >> transport, but in rapid detection of buggy http2 implementations in >> peers. > > +1 > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 14:36:13 UTC