I really think we can do #1, but I won't object to #2. -P On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Personally -- SGTM (including #2). > > > > On 21 Nov. 2016, at 1:29 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Patrick (perhaps indirectly) suggested that we can harness a Firefox bug > here: > > > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/270 > > > > That is, rather than mention that coalescing between https and http > > might happen, forbid it instead. > > > > I'm fairly sure that this will address the concerns Erik had. Maybe > > too effectively; objections like this would be good to hear. > > > > I didn't add any text here about coalescing two http:// origins. I > > don't want to close this issue until we resolve that too. Should we: > > > > 1. allow coalescing of two http:// origins by default > > 2. forbid coalescing of two http:// origins without an explicit signal > > > > My preference is for option 2. > > > > Let's be perfectly clear, there's no inherent protocol reason why we > > can't coalesce. But this stems from an (over)abundance of caution. > > We can develop explicit opt-in signals regarding coalescing if it came > > to that ... #include <ORIGIN frame discussions>. > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 22:05:25 UTC