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

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:28:16 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B884EC5-123E-486F-83F1-2BC7EC14323A@mnot.net>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>

> On 22 Oct 2014, at 4:27 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> My preferred option is 4!  which is the status quo for encoding but with a trimmed static table of approx 32 entries, mostly with values (to give space for dynamic headers).

That's a separate issue, and I'd like it to remain one.


> Almost as good is option 3 - but it needs to be considered together with a refined static table.
> 
> I can live with 1, but I agree with Willy that it is clear we missed a revision of the static table.
> 
> Can't live with 2 because it removes the possibility of pre-generation in many cases.


Thanks, Greg.

Cheers,

> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 October 2014 16:03, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/578>
> 
> We've straw polled the before, but after further discussion we have another proposal for this issue.
> 
> The proposals for this issue are now:
> 
> 1) Close with no change (status quo).
> 
> 2) Jeff's proposal: <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/578#issuecomment-58030551>
> 
> 3) Willy's proposal: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20141020165353.GA25743@1wt.eu>
> 
> Please state which you support (multiples are fine), as well as what you can't live with (and, briefly, why).
> 
> 
> A word about how I'll judge consensus -- as we are post-WGLC, we are only entertaining changes that fall into one of four categories:
> 
> a) editorial improvements
> b) substantial interop problems
> c) serious security issues
> d) changes that have broad consensus (i.e., we all agree it's worth it)
> 
> Our AD has said that it's entirely appropriate to raise the bar in this manner as we get closer to delivery.
> 
> As such, proposal #2 and #3 above can only fall under (d). What I'm looking for here, then, is for *strong* support (as in, very few if any detractors) for either (2) or (3); if making these changes is controversial, we haven't met the bar for (d) and so #1 wins the day.
> 
> When we straw polled this before, many people said that they didn't want to see any change; what I'm specifically looking for is whether they've changed their minds.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>  @  Webtide - an Intalio subsidiary
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 05:28:43 UTC

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