- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:41:06 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Willy, On 7 Oct 2014, at 4:28 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:24:45PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> That's not where we're at, Greg. >> >> The current stance on changing the static table was that we'd do so *if* >> we've agreed to make other breaking changes. > > But Mark, people's experience differ depending on the environment where > they deploy the protocol, so that means that the current status is too > white or too black and that possibly making it a little bit grayer would > make it more suitable for most environments. I don't see what's wrong > with considering feedbacks from real deployments, *even at this stage*. > Otherwise that means testers are useless and we should just work on > paper with a wet finger in the wind. We are certainly considering feedback from deployment, and we're also considering many other things. So far, the WG is strongly leaning towards not making a change here, and I don't see any overriding security or interoperability concern that would make a change at this late stage necessary. We've discussed this many times, and had it confirmed by our Area Director; it's entirely appropriate to reject changes that don't meet this bar (either an overriding security or interop issue, or strong group consensus to make the change) at this point in the lifetime of the protocol. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 05:41:37 UTC