W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:44:40 +0000
To: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <potswa@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D047073-A57B-4ED4-9F3E-624C0AF2B66B@iaea.org>
On Jul 14, 2014, at 21:14, "martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>" <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 14 July 2014 12:11,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org<mailto:K.Morgan@iaea.org>> wrote:
that claim isn't stated anywhere in the spec.

We don't need to make those claims.  It's a specification.  It isn't
the role of the specification to justify itself, at least not on every
point.

Patrick said:
A multiplexed protocol doesn't work without prioritization.  Or rather, it ends up worse than what we currently have.

If you truly believe that, seems like you would want to explicitly state that in the spec. Otherwise you're setting up implementors for failure.

Or is it a secret?




This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 19:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC