Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

+1 (Akamai server). Not worth it at this point of time.

- Saurabh

On 10/23/14, 10:39 AM, "Nicholas Hurley" <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote:

>I'm not convinced another interop is worth considering until this scheme
>has been shown to be a *significant* improvement for *all* use cases
>over the status quo. Mark has said the only four reasons we would accept
>any changes at this point are:
>
>> a) editorial improvements
>> b) substantial interop problems
>> c) serious security issues
>> d) changes that have broad consensus (i.e., we all agree it's worth it)
>
>and furthermore went on to say that the only category this option falls
>under is (d), and that "if making these changes is controversial, we
>haven't met the bar".
>
>So far, I haven't seen this be a totally non-controversial change
>(though I understand it's not my call to make). That said, there is (to
>my mind) a way the proponents of this change can remove any controversy
>- by proving that this option is a wholesale improvement. We don't need
>another interop draft for that, just someone to run a decent number of
>test cases (that fall under both the "better with static table first"
>and "better with dynamic table first" buckets) and show us the numbers.
>Tatsuhiro has provided an implementation for anyone who doesn't want to
>update their own (or write their own), so let's wait to see what the
>numbers tell us before making what is currently at best a speculative
>change to the spec.
>-- 
>Peace,
>  -Nick
>

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 17:49:56 UTC