- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:01:46 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It looks like there's a good amount of interest in Option 3 (Willy's proposal) for issue #578. However, there's also concern that it is untested, and pushback on that basis. I am *extremely* wary of making a substantial change in the protocol at the last minute without implementation and testing; there is a large risk of introducing bugs, security issues and interop problems. So, if we want to pursue option #3, I think we need to do another Implementation Draft based upon it, with a subsequent interop. This will blow out our schedule by one cycle; historically, that means about two to three months (although the holiday season is approaching, so it may be longer). Such an interop might be another Interim (likely in January), or it might be virtual; we'd figure that out later. With that in mind, I'd like to hear from our implementers -- who is interested in this enough to implement a new draft and be able to bring it an interop on such a timeframe? Please, one person per implementation, and identify your implementation as you do so (we have enough now that it's necessary). Note that I'm not saying we're converging on option 3 yet -- I'm trying to find out more about what it would mean if we go in that direction. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 01:02:13 UTC