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

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Kulkarni, Saurabh <sakulkar@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:04:05 -0500
To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D06D3141.B924%sakulkar@akamai.com>
Same here for me, prefer option 1. There has absolutely been no data to
support either option 2 or 3 as mentioned below.

- Saurabh

On 10/22/14, 9:19 AM, "Nicholas Hurley" <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote:

>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 17:04:37 UTC

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