- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:59:03 +1000
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, at 17:51, Yoav Weiss wrote: > If that's indeed the case, we shouldn't define reprioritization *at > all*. Making it optional is a cop-out, which would result in > inconsistencies, meaning clients can't rely on it and need to > work-around its absence. That is indeed what we are headed for. But you can't levy a requirement on servers to implement something like this. And even if they do, they won't all make the same decisions. > We should decide if reprioritization is good or bad, based on as much > data as we can pull, and make sure it's implemented only if we see > benefits for it in some cases, and then make sure it's only used in > those cases. I would like the first part. For the implementation piece, that depends on the strength of the arguments behind the first bit more than it does on our actions here.
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2020 07:59:37 UTC