Subject: Blackmail??? Was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:03:03 +1000

On 2 July 2014 16:44, Mike Belshe <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is why I called the proposal "blackmail".
>>
>
> Let's be clear here - you're the one blackmailing. You're threatening to
> deliberately violate the spec if you don't like it.  Will is simply making
> sure that the (hopefully accidental) violator of the spec is properly
> identified so that the bug can be easily fixed.
>

Whoa Steady there!!!!

I know that discussions in the WG have got a little bit heated, but please
lets not go labelling implementer who choose not to implement the full
specification as blackmailers!

Several implementers have stated that they will not implement CONTINUATIONs
because it is not required for the traffic that they serve.    I believe
that it is a reasonable and valid technical decision to make and it is
entirely appropriate for them to inform the WG of that decision and the
reasons behind it.

I have much more concern about the common browsers deciding not to support
UPGRADE, as that is a technical decision that will force a significant
change in the web eco system - but I fully support their ability to make
such a decision and the live/die/change by it's consequences.

regards

-- 
Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

---

From: Mike Belshe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 03:19:24 -0700

I apologize for feeding the troll.  He brought the word blackmail into the
loop and I should not have let myself get baited.

As for the upgrade process, please note that upgrade has always been
optional.

mike

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Several implementers have stated that they will not implement
> CONTINUATIONs because it is not required for the traffic that they
> serve.    I believe that it is a reasonable and valid technical decision to
> make and it is entirely appropriate for them to inform the WG of that
> decision and the reasons behind it.
>

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:29:49 +1000

> loop and I should not have let myself get baited.

As much as I agree with what Poul is saying,  I do not support the way he
is saying it.

> As for the upgrade process, please note that upgrade has always been

As much as I disagree with the decision to not support upgrade, I fully
support the browsers ability to not implement it.

cheers