Re: http/2 and "extensions"

On 15 July 2014 11:01, James M Snell <> wrote:
> Certainly extensions that come in the future would be
> optional-to-implement, however, the question is directed more towards
> the group of things being discussed today as "extensions"... the set
> of things we already know about and are discussing.

Implicit in any discussion of making anything an extension is that it
is optional-to-implement.

Surely you can reach your own conclusions on what is implied by
suggesting that something be made an extension.

Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 18:05:26 UTC