- 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>
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