Re: h2 priority

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>[snip]
> Over the last couple of years it has been openly vetted and tweaked and the
> definition has been made significantly more robust. Alternatives were
> considered, but nothing better has been implemented. This is a useful
> process but one which has now run its course and is ready for a successful
> conclusion: publishing of a stable open standard to facilitate wide interop.
> That outcome does not preclude also working on something more speculative.
>

Small correction: s/open standard/RFC

It's an important distinction. An RFC is still just a *Proposed*
Standard. Normally, this distinction wouldn't matter all that much but
in the case of a protocol as broadly used as HTTP 1.1, I believe it's
well worth mentioning.

> The prototype protocol now carries over 1/3 of my HTTP transactions in
> production - many others are waiting for a stable and open standard to work
> with before joining the party. The only question left is really whether the
> IETF is institutionally capable of providing that standard or another venue
> will have to step up and fill that gap in this case. I certainly hope it can
> - we'll find out soon.
>

So, in other words, "If you don't play how we want to play, we'll just
take our ball somewhere else!" That hardly seems helpful or "open".

Yes, this WG has worked for two and a half years on this draft, and in
some scopes, that can be considered quite a long time. I'm not certain
that any more work in this forum would really make the protocol better
either. However, here we have some very legitimate, non-editorial
feedback being submitted to WG by one of the broadly recognized
industry experts on HTTP questioning decisions that have come up
repeatedly over the past two and a half years. Personally, I'd
consider that to be a very strong signal that maybe the WG really
ought to take a step back for a second, listen and reevaluate some of
those decisions. The only question left is not whether the IETF is the
right venue, but whether the members of this WG are willing and
capable of putting ego aside long enough to consider that feedback
appropriately -- that is, after all, why we have a Last Call process
in the first place.

As far as Roy's feedback is concerned: My personal preference would be
for Priority to be removed from the main document entirely, and have
it pushed into a separate document as an optional extension. I think
Roy's suggestion of making it an HTTP header makes sense and provides
a great deal more flexibility in options down the road.

- James

> -Patrick
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 15:51:49 UTC