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

Re: h2 priority

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:37:52 +0000
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
cc: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <43620.1409672272@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAOdDvNqqrqU-G3f7TuLDtY5+Pa1X=i0pzwv06fXcynwZQCOUVQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Patrick McManus writes:

>Some folks can't be bothered to generate running code or sometimes even comment
>for much of that time; but that pattern persists in any group no matter the
>term or the people (I too am guilty at times.)

It was obvious from the start that this was a "goldplate SPDY"
exercise and I know that I was not the only person who prioritized
my time accordingly.

If the process had started out with an open call to ask what the
goals for HTTP/2 should be in the first place it would be different,
but as it is, there suddenly existed a goal which was SPDY-shaped
and an aggressive schedule which made sure that nobody else could
challenge the obvious winner.

Feel free to agree with me, but I've had this percetion from day
one, and I have seen nothing that would make me change my mind.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 15:38:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC