- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:59:46 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
3 1 2, can live with any of them > On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:03 AM, 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/ > > _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 11:00:18 UTC