- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:50:26 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/10/2014 5:22 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> 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. I feel the same way as Greg on this, and feel confident saying the other Squid develoeprs agree as well. "Getting it right" is one of the reasons we have not run ahead with a quick update and joined the implementors party already. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUSIkQAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjDMgIAMC+jCITxFT7VNZDqH3Jg8e7 IvXZQDYUp/Pp50pwYUedptMoQjCd/cUHXb9473Z8yaYOpKdPZSsfb7eYw04Uycvi ANR0qttSV+OPQTDuguNCWkNA63IfKw2GhIMtrMUqVhIirqHXAe1kCVaBnV/LFI/Q NKAcXIK+o9QOBl7SFMEQ3eyeYoBfM83Eu4iLJC4v84woe7fYRZHHrvcmoHraGwFh The51jAFGI3cVQIoHXrUW4j2I/hl2+v9dOsJ1goAupz3rMAiDnB/shYZ88l7S61V 8kWAP2jk/rBBX6oBNOPeXfqt/kqXWzZNd0gYWdUdLy0C/JjeR2jYUggzYuH9pkM= =NnkN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 04:51:04 UTC