- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:30:58 +1000
- To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 16:01, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Both look good to me. The second one will have to drop its first chunk once > the first one is merged (since it describes priority across Upgrade). Yeah, fixing that should be simple enough. > Given the deprecation of the PRIORITY frames and the explicit mention of > the lack of a better alternative, should we add a specific warning that > these frames must not be reused for experimental purposes as they may still > be consumed by servers ? We're pointing to the new priority draft, which uses a different frame type. Do you think it worthwhile saying "frames with this type cannot be reassigned different semantics?" Technically you can negotiate different format or semantics for any frame; in practice, this is probably a terrible idea and so we'd look to discourage that.
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2021 06:31:33 UTC