- From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:19:10 -0700
- 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/ > > -- Peace, -Nick
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:19:34 UTC