- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:53:24 -0700
- 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>
... and to be clear, the PR was about a server-sent SETTING; does anyone have feedback about Nick's idea regarding a client-sent SETTING? > On 1 Oct 2017, at 9:12 am, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > I'm not hearing wild enthusiasm for this, so I'm going to drop the PR. > > Cheers, > > >> On 27 Sep 2017, at 7:23 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> 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/ >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 October 2017 21:53:52 UTC