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

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:00:57 +0900
Message-ID: <5447E2C9.8010509@iij.ad.jp>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
My preference is 3, 1 and 2.

I think that adding one bit flag to switch a static and a dynamic header 
table is worth
for trying even in this last stage.

And if possible, I wish to change the current alphabet order of  a 
static header table
to make the most of 31 entries.

Regards,

On 2014/10/22 14:03, 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 17:01:26 UTC

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