- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:23:53 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
I'm OK either way here; it's attractive to have a deadline for knowing whether the connection is under the ORIGIN model (first SETTINGS), but I'm also a bit nervous about introducing such a big change relatively late in the day. Put another way - does anyone think that this is clearly better than the current spec and needs to get in? PR here (still needs some work if we want to adopt): https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/406 > On 28 Sep 2017, at 11:48 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >> I'm not going to object to the setting - it just seems it doesn't really >> address the fact that the client is going to see both 7540 rules and ORIGIN >> rules at some point on the same connection so there's not a lot of point to >> it imo. > > I see your point. It narrows, but doesn't eliminate the window of > uncertainty and as a result it isn't that much use to you. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2017 02:24:22 UTC