Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 07 October 2014 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51B61A9125 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kqYilZ8EZma5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 694B71A8BB0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XbNKx-0006IR-TD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:29:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:29:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XbNKx-0006IR-TD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XbNKp-0006Gz-Id for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:29:19 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XbNKo-0004E2-Ia for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 05:29:19 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s975SlgA011126; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:28:47 +0200
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 07:28:47 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20141007052847.GA11117@1wt.eu>
References: <CA+pLO_jkN67HLT7oup+FcYVY+RZ7ckhpY2gGy=TAsr2UUMnVVA@mail.gmail.com> <987FB86A-EF8B-4CD1-A9A7-52A9163E8CB3@mnot.net> <54334615.40907@iij.ad.jp> <CAH_y2NGuRBeN=_NJExeFqt06Uq5MAdYHpAp2xhiFKj0AE1wcJQ@mail.gmail.com> <0BB64E69-463C-4D12-8582-FD1FF84D1B10@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0BB64E69-463C-4D12-8582-FD1FF84D1B10@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.103, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XbNKo-0004E2-Ia 29011d41fa8d39aac1c0cc01e47c9ee7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20141007052847.GA11117@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27467
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:24:45PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> That's not where we're at, Greg.
> 
> The current stance on changing the static table was that we'd do so *if*
> we've agreed to make other breaking changes. 

But Mark, people's experience differ depending on the environment where
they deploy the protocol, so that means that the current status is too
white or too black and that possibly making it a little bit grayer would
make it more suitable for most environments. I don't see what's wrong
with considering feedbacks from real deployments, *even at this stage*.
Otherwise that means testers are useless and we should just work on
paper with a wet finger in the wind.

Willy, confused.