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

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:04:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoy39QFWfLVg1UPBtq+OKGUb2r=zoevFDZHJJ6oa0R_ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

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


> 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.
>
>
imo its a reasonable editorial suggestion... if you provide a pull request
the editor can decide. it would be fine by me either way. A specification
does not need to discuss every implication of the protocol as if it were a
text book but it obviously carries some non normative language to help the
reader put it all in context. I tend to prefer minimalism in the core
document, but that's not the in vogue style right now. The editor should
decide.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 20:04:28 UTC

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