Re: Blackmail??? Was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

I apologize for feeding the troll.  He brought the word blackmail into the
loop and I should not have let myself get baited.

As for the upgrade process, please note that upgrade has always been


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Greg Wilkins <> wrote:

> On 2 July 2014 16:44, Mike Belshe <> wrote:
>>  This is why I called the proposal "blackmail".
>> Let's be clear here - you're the one blackmailing. You're threatening to
>> deliberately violate the spec if you don't like it.  Will is simply making
>> sure that the (hopefully accidental) violator of the spec is properly
>> identified so that the bug can be easily fixed.
> Whoa Steady there!!!!
> I know that discussions in the WG have got a little bit heated, but please
> lets not go labelling implementer who choose not to implement the full
> specification as blackmailers!
> Several implementers have stated that they will not implement
> CONTINUATIONs because it is not required for the traffic that they
> serve.    I believe that it is a reasonable and valid technical decision to
> make and it is entirely appropriate for them to inform the WG of that
> decision and the reasons behind it.
> I have much more concern about the common browsers deciding not to support
> UPGRADE, as that is a technical decision that will force a significant
> change in the web eco system - but I fully support their ability to make
> such a decision and the live/die/change by it's consequences.
> regards
> --
> Greg Wilkins <>
> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that
> scales
>  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 10:19:51 UTC