Re: #225: JFV Revisited

> On 11 Aug 2016, at 5:49 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:

> With that out of the way, I am still struggling to find out what
> problem we are trying to solve here?
> Is it:
> A) Allow people to use (restricted) JSON in headers, because people
>   want to use JSON in headers (and will do it anyway).
> Or is it:
> B) Try to make headers more compute-efficient in preparation for
>   future 100+Gbit/s speeds.
> Or is it both ?

I'ts neither. The only thing we have broad agreement to, AFAICT, is

C) Specify conventions for people to use when defining headers, to avoid the most common footguns involved in that process (as well as generation, parsing, etc.).

There have been very few people who are excited about (A); rather, I think people saw JSON as a (somewhat distasteful, but practical) means to an end.  

You're the strongest proponent for (B); my perception (which I'm happy to have corrected) is that most others are happy to wait for an alternative encoding (e.g., in a future version of HTTP) to get the efficiency gains.

> I vote "No".
> Show of hands please...

That's not how things work, you know...

Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 07:54:25 UTC