- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:00:30 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
About getting it right? Absolutely I agree. Much better to spend a little time getting HTTP/2 "right" than to have to abandon it for the mythical HTTP/3 that keeps getting mentioned, particularly if the changes are relatively minor and can be tested quickly and easily. The extra time will also give us more interop results, which can only help to improve the specification and protocol. > On Oct 23, 2014, at 12:22 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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. > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 11:01:05 UTC