I think saying that anonymous and non-anonymous requests can share a connection in most cases is fine - but that when connection auth is present those connections cannot carry anonymous requests. I believe that satisfies the need without talking about various bits of protocol versioning and reuse strategies.
In general I think the previous mistake made (in various documents) was overspecifying things about the transport and this is unwinding it. I wouldn't unwind it by making it even more specific. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Patrick McManus <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think what you describe (as more aggressive) would be a fine gecko > > implementation. > > I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1363284. > > > > Hopefully fetch would say something much more generic? > > Could you explain why it's not desirable to describe this in more > detail? It sounds like you don't agree with my preconnect example and > giving developers a guaranteed contract to write code against, but you > didn't really address it. > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ > > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
