Re: http/2 and "extensions"

• From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
• Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:04:59 -0700
• To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
• Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CABkgnnXZid0i0We3wx2pnxnx26VXodQSQ_KH70ASspVF_f3zEg@mail.gmail.com>

On 15 July 2014 11:01, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> 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