RE: Call for Consensus: #578

1 > 3 > 2, can live with any.

At this point, any change needs to have good data showing an improvement commensurate with its invasiveness.  We haven't seen the data, so our preference remains with the status quo.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:03 PM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Call for Consensus: #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: <>

3) Willy's proposal: <>

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.


Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 19:24:08 UTC