- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:42:55 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfQaSaQ3su-NBy-Z6q5fVMVhYuFgDAq8sj4r-6wMH44Xhw@mail.gmail.com>
2 > 3 >> 1 I would much prefer either of 2 or 3 to 1. On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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 20:43:22 UTC