Re: h2 priority

On 1 September 2014 01:53, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> Sorry to keep pushing the same barrow, but I think the current draft has
> landed on a local minima of a self consistent design.  Change almost
> anything and you pop it out of the local minima and a lot more design
> decision will not longer make sense.

Thank you! I've been feeling weird about Roy's suggestions for a
little while but couldn't articulate what I was thinking, but this is
it. The WG has been over many of these issues already and had made
small changes, but had rejected the larger changes (in part out of a
concern for already-existing implementations, and in part out of a
desire to get HTTP/2 out the door).

I think that if we make any of the (relatively substantial) changes
Roy is suggesting we'll want to go back and look really hard at the
division between the framing layer and the semantic layer. However, I
anticipate substantial push-back on making these changes. The WG has
been focused on moving quickly, and regardless of how complex the
specification is we do have implementations that can interop. In
principle HTTP/2 *could* be pushed out the door right now and the
world would not end.

However, the WG should decide what it means to do this correctly. We
either slow HTTP/2 down to refine it or we accept that almost
immediately after getting it out the door we'll need to start looking
at 'fixing' it for HTTP/3. There is clearly a crowd in favour of doing
either of those things in this WG, but the browser implementations are
noticeably absent from that crowd. They are the group that need
convincing.

Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 07:47:18 UTC