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

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:19:10 -0700
Message-Id: <1413994750.755471.182064009.5B426FFE@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm all in favor of option 1 (still).

Option 2 didn't get much support last time around, so I'm not quite sure
I see the point in it being on the table again, but since it is... I'm
still not in favor. It optimizes a special use case at the detriment of
the general use case. That's just bad design.

I'm a -1 on option 3, as well. So far as I can tell, it has zero testing
whatsoever, and I haven't seen any data indicating an actual global
improvement. Just because we can make more things fit in a single byte
doesn't mean this is a dramatic improvement over the existing scheme. If
it doesn't make everything dramatically better, it's not worth risking
at this stage. We have a protocol that works, and works well.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 22:03, Mark Nottingham 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/

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:19:34 UTC

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