W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12.txt

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:11:44 +0000
To: <mnot@mnot.net>, <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC2018565745E@SEM002PD.sg.iaea.org>
On Wednesday,18 February 2015 02:48, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
>
> On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:47 am, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> As we discussed (but for the benefit of everyone else) -- we've
>>> already talked about this extensively, and came to consensus that
>>> making such a change would be more likely to cause problems, without
>>> making a material improvement in the protocol.
>>
>> Do you have a reference for this conclusion? I do not really agree
>> that we should ship a new protocol with known bugs for the short-term
>> benefit of experimental implementations, and I would like to find out
>> what I am missing.
>
> The relevant issue is:
>  https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/587

Apples and oranges. Greg was talking about improving the table efficiency. Julian et al are talking about fixing flat out bugs.

> ... and this is perhaps relevant context:
>   http://www.w3.org/mid/B47FA4E6-6F91-44A1-8257-AE5086EF4DC1@mnot.net

I'd like clarification from the AD (Barry?) on the text from this "context". To quote (from Mark's link above):

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:41:06 +1100, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
> We've discussed this many times, and had it confirmed by our Area Director;
> it's entirely appropriate to reject changes that don't meet this bar (either an
> overriding security or interop issue, or strong group consensus to make the
> change) at this point in the lifetime of the protocol.

Where does this concept of "strong" group consensus come from? To quote Section 6 of RFC7282 [1]...
"If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared."

I fail to see how this doesn't apply here.


[1] "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF" http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282#page-14

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 08:12:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC