Re: PRIORITY extension

On 14 Jul 2014, at 18:47, "" <> wrote:
>> On 14 July 2014 07:52, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
>> Purely from a textual point of view, that would be a good idea no matter
>> what status the priority stuff gets.
> From a purely editorial perspective, I'd be opposed to this.  You guys
> have created a lot of work for me already


> , and shuffling text between
> documents doesn't help get us any closer to done.

I keep hearing this argument over and over. Is the goal just to finish, no matter what?

> And we're not done
> until we have a prioritization story.

I can't find that in the charter.

At the end of the day it was just a suggestion. I recall reading emails from several implementors which said they won't be implementing PRIORITY any time soon. It also takes up a big chunk of the spec and it's non-obvious if it's optional or not.  I was also surprised to read Patrick's claim that h2 won't work without PRIORITY because that claim isn't stated anywhere in the spec.


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 19:11:44 UTC