W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:00:18 -0500
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E9E2FAFB-8379-4DCA-81B6-72675F9015CE@redhat.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>

On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.  

Iíll second that. I am certainly trying to limit this to critical issues that effect my implementation.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 01:00:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC