Re: Title (and Identifier) for final and in-progress versions of HTTP version 2

yup.
-=R


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 11 December 2012 23:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some kind of up-front version negotiation (thusfar NPN or
> > Alternate-Protocol) has been sufficient for all versioning thusfar in
> SPDY.
>
> This is useful information.  I'm not proposing that we close the door
> entirely on forward compatibility features in-protocol, just that we
> don't have a clear enough story yet.  I don't find "might want to make
> progressive improvements" to be compelling enough to justify the
> bit-expenditure.  For instance, new features that rely on new message
> types could operate happily just using the extension points we
> establish for message types.
>