Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

For OkHttp (Android), I can do an implementation within a couple weeks of
the draft.

Depending on timing of the draft, it may get into version 2.1, which is
still baking, or worst 2.2.

I can also help test Netty and/or provide nagging service :)

-A
On Oct 22, 2014 6:05 PM, "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/
>
>
>