Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

> On 23 Oct 2014, at 1:03 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks, Greg. If other folks feel this way, I'd appreciate hearing it.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 04:23:20 UTC