Re: Implementer intent -- option 3 for #578

Google is in favor of adopting Willy's proposal if there is data
demonstrating improved performance as a result of the change. We may not be
able to contribute data of our own in time for IETF 90, however.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> +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
>
>
>