- From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:39:07 -0700
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 23:39:35 UTC
Which is why we should make sure that there are extensions that people want to use, as soon as the spec is ready. I see no reason why exceedingly large frames (along with altsvc, which I *definitely* want) can't be among that list. -- Peace, -Nick On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 11 July 2014 03:32, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote: > >> With the operative words there being "extended" and "option". So why >> can't we do this in an extension, again? > > > Because it is yet unclear if there will actually be a viable extension eco > system, which will allow new extensions to be defined and deployed. > > cheers > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that > scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. >
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 23:39:35 UTC