- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:48:08 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/10/2014 7:26 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > Thanks, Willy. > > Everyone, please extend the straw poll to include these two options > -- who prefers one of them as the solution? > > Regards, > > > On 7 Oct 2014, at 5:16 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > <snip> >> The second one was much simpler and Greg seems to favor it as >> well : >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.http-wg/23201 >> If that level of change is going to be accepted I prefer this one. With h2-14 draft text as second choice. Notice that this design allows for parallel experimentation on the static table contents, with a slightly larger static table size. So the WG can switch in a new static table in a later draft without affecting anybodies coded logic or algorithms. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEbBAEBAgAGBQJUM4ynAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjOFcH+KDfvlw4w7/3NBw3EMgSIAZN syMe8QO15UU3QxZ6a20wCQMaN3Jq3VnwCmqqgqegB39paTnMyHcVNX46lRDQj8zC 3TiiWI89FadALv1+LICUJPZnQSYCYUTchhntMNHuFWJ+2HzBzmIiRcQX2VT/8R/R 8Sy+AFkHhfDLh+yo6+KkdDe9dGNINRz5l0vlBJ+QvIsUrdj5K56Gxbro/y5ubTCr W2vXsii/LKwLcDoQ8eaX/5S8CCVLTes0CjCPnZoMqiIJQOicLXEJyM15Ue4dtV2l SLD8atNRbAE5yAYLYcbjG0MMER9gGUPyUm+9HhToAkgaUg39mYKShijPMTNCsA== =BnM8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 06:48:48 UTC