Re: PRIORITY extension

For my part, I think the discussion here has well motivated the need for
priority (let's put it in the FAQ!)

On 15 July 2014 05:53, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:

> We have spent almost 2 1/2 years vetting and tweaking a pre-existing
> technology in an open forum. There aren't a lot of new angles to be looked
> at anymore.


Still, you have to expect the more eyeballs on the protocol as it
approaches LC.     The fact that some issues were discuss and decided 2 1/2
years ago does not mean that they will prove to be acceptable to a wider
audience.  Mistakes do get made and good decisions sometime don't look so
great with some perspective.

If new input really isn't welcome, then the process should lock in the
experts at the start of the process (kind of like the JCP does) and let
them run to completion...... but my general experience is that I've been
much happier implementing RFCs than I have implementing JSRs.   There is
value in the IETF process... no mater how ugly it gets.

While it may not sound like it often, I for one do appreciate the efforts
of those that have been here for the the full 2 1/2 years and definitely
appreciate the patience displayed when issues previously discussed are re
explained and re-evaluated.

thanks!











-- 
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.