Re: PRIORITY extension

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:33 PM, <> wrote:

> On Monday,14 July 2014 02:58, wrote:
> > 2014/07/14 9:46 "Patrick McManus" <>:
> > >
> > > The whole point of h2 is a prioritized, muxxed protocol with improved
> > connection handling.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more.
> > Removing PRIORITY is really bad idea.
> >
> Nobody is suggesting getting rid of PRIORITY.
> I was merely suggesting that PRIORITY might be better served as a separate
> extension RFC, much like HPACK.
Are you saying that ​we should separate PRIORITY as standalone document and
be referenced from h2 core spec?  Then it is not an *extension* RFC.  They
are in core spec but just in separate documents, so as the HPACK.

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

> 1) It makes the core h2 spec smaller and easier to grok (e.g. it wasn't
> obvious to me for a while that PRIORITY is completely optional)
> 2) *More importantly*, as PHK said (below) we can improve and version
> PRIORITY asynchronously with respect to the core h2 spec.
> On Monday,14 July 2014 02:53, wrote:
> > Making it an extension means we don't have to finish it at the
> > same time as the base HTTP/2 spec, and that we can replace
> > it with something better later on.
> This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient.
> Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be
> privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
> communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this
> message and then delete it from your system.

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 13:50:08 UTC