- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:34:39 +0000
- To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
- cc: William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <42A54D15-0AA3-4172-94F7-E94C86E84D7F@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, Ben Nive n-Jenkins writes: >So the idea is the protocol contains enough 'hooks' to sufficiently >express the different priorities between & within groups that folks >would like to express but isn't prescriptive about how anyone uses or >implements different prioritisation, scheduling, etc schemes. That was clearly not how the original poster presented it: "I consider all those options as suboptimal, and thus consider this issue to be a protocol bug. Our SPDY/4 prioritization proposal addresses this by [...]" -- 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 Monday, 4 February 2013 20:35:02 UTC