Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

I (iij-http2) will implement this. This change is not so hard to test 
and debug compared to the pasts.

Regards,

On 2014/10/23 10:01, Mark Nottingham 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/
>
>

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 03:45:22 UTC