RE: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

+1 to this.  Microsoft is not going to implement this in our code in the required time frame, but if there's data that can demonstrate substantial advantages across the board, we wouldn't object to pulling the change into the spec.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Hurley [mailto:hurley@todesschaf.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:39 AM
To: Mark Nottingham; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

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 18:02:30 UTC