Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

Speaking for Jetty.

I completely agree that if we were to adopt Option 3, then another cycle is
justified to test it.

I definitely think something needs to be done as if the current static
table is etched into a standard it will be a bit of an embarrassment for
all time (kind of like the spelling of referer :)

I think a revised static table like I've proposed in
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/587   is perhaps a compromise
that would not need the extra cycle, but achieve many of the benefits with
little cost.

In short, getting it right is more important for us than getting it out
before Q2-2015.  We don't think the status quo is right, but could live
with either a #587 style fix in the short term or an option 3 fix in the
mid term.

cheers



On 23 October 2014 12:01, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>  @  Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary*
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.