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

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:47:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=Lr7Mqzwh5gRyiVfJ4RdGKKs8uM7bNiY+VznvRuRMa_zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Since we are doing this discussion for few percent efficiency gain in
certain usecase, without actual measurement and verified results, -1 to
option 3 for now.

My preference is 1. I can live with 2.

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
 2014/10/22 20:22 "Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa" <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>:

> Are there anyone who implemented proposal 3 and vetified that it shows the
> satisfying results with custom header dominated data?
>
> Best regards,
> Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
>  2014/10/22 14:08 "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>:
>
>> <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 Thursday, 23 October 2014 00:48:03 UTC

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