W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: #578 [was: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:27:01 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <8C2A9D4A-A025-40A6-85B5-94BB497F7AEC@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
That's reasonable, Amos; I'll start a separate thread to ask for positions on status quo vs. Jeff's proposal vs. Willy's.

Cheers,


> On 22 Oct 2014, at 1:31 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 22/10/2014 1:53 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> This thread seems to be going off into defining an extension, which
>> is entirely appropriate.
>> 
>> I'm not seeing broad acclaim for making any changes to the existing
>> scheme in the spec itself; in particular, Jeff's proposal failed to
>> get wide support.
>> 
>> So, I think we can mark #578 as closed without action.
> 
> I see only an extension for the unrelated timestamp things.
> 
> 
> Can we try seriously for a consensus on just Willys' patch to separate
> the tables?
> 
> Other proposals got their own "vote" threads and many days before a
> consensus/non-consensus was declared. This one has only just had 25hrs
> buried at the back end of a long heated discussion.
> 
> It is distinct from Jeff's reversal proposal and offers benefits to
> all participant "camps" over both that and the status quo. I fear it
> has got lost amidst this long thread on a rushed timescale.




--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 03:27:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:40 UTC