Re: h2 priority

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:51 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The prototype protocol now carries over 1/3 of my HTTP transactions in
>> > production - many others are waiting for a stable and open standard to
>> > work
>> > with before joining the party. The only question left is really whether
>> > the
>> > IETF is institutionally capable of providing that standard or another
>> > venue
>> > will have to step up and fill that gap in this case. I certainly hope it
>> > can
>> > - we'll find out soon.
>> >
>>
>> So, in other words, "If you don't play how we want to play, we'll just
>> take our ball somewhere else!" That hardly seems helpful or "open".
>
>
> James, I do not appreciate you saying 'in other words' and using quotation
> marks in attempt to paraphrase me. I said what I said. You are free to say
> what you like. In any event, I strongly disagree with your characterization.
>

Regardless of whether you agree with the characterization or not,
that's precisely how your first note cames across.

>[snip]
>> either. However, here we have some very legitimate, non-editorial
>>
>
> all feedback is important. And here I speak generically - not about Roy's
> emails (where I wish to comment on them specifically, I will comment on them
> specifically as I have elsewhere in this thread :)) - Last Call isn't the
> best time to re-open issues that have been tracked, discussed, and resolved
> previously.

It's my turn to disagree here. The point of last call is to broaden
the review to a much larger community. It's entirely reasonable and
expected to receive feedback on issues that had been tracked,
discussed and resolved previously by the WG. In fact, I think that's
pretty much a given.

- James

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 17:28:20 UTC