- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:35:17 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-28 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message<4F23B745.3060002@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >> On 2012-01-28 09:41, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> If you feel that any of what was added isn't needed then please follow up. > > Ok, yes, let me follow up, which ironically is going to take > some length, because I probably have been a bit too brief > and summary during a stressed work-week. > ... I appreciate the thoughtful answer, but what you list has nothing to with RFC 2616 vs HTTPbis. I do agree that whatever is done better get the layering right. My conclusion although is different: calling something HTTP/2.0 which doesn't roughly address the same use cases would be totally confusing. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 10:36:00 UTC