Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 30 October 2013 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E7B21F9FF2; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.715
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBuDNZ3Y5b3e; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157F411E828B; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9U926CH024750; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:02:06 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6994_f8b4_f3b34056_4141_11e3_b29c_001e6722eec2; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:02:06 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E96BFF5D; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:02:06 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <5270CB01.9@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:01:53 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131027115007.07e32210@elandnews.com> <526E6DF4.4030509@gmx.de> <751EE3ED19D0A62BD858585C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <526E73B8.90705@gmx.de> <4F6568484E956ADBC46BEB16@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <526F0EC1.7010809@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <526F0EC1.7010809@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:02:38 -0000

On 2013/10/29 10:26, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 29/10/2013 8:22 a.m., John C Klensin wrote:

>> My understanding is that the HTTPbis work is a rather major
>> revision with at least some cases for which "get it right" is
>> more important that complete backward compatibility, especially
>> if there is a clear migration path.
>
> No. The focus on the WG has been to document what is actually *working*
> and clarify existing HTTP behaviour in order to encourage interoperability.

To clarify for people not too involved in the HTTPbis work:

The HTTPbis WG has two main work items:

1) Moving HTTP 1.1 to Standard. That's what all the drafts are about 
that are currently under review and discussion in apps-discuss. For 
people familiar with Internet mail, that's somewhat similar to the work 
that happened when moving from RFCs 2821,... to RFCs 5321,... As such, 
it doesn't leave much room for innovation or even fixing stuff that 
looks broken from the outside, and the HTTPbis WG was particularly 
careful to avoid any such breakage.

2) HTTP 2.0: This is a completely new protocol design, so there is quite 
a bit of room for "getting things right", and stuff like using integers 
for representing dates (because the protocol is binary) is being 
considered. This on many fronts allows cleanup similar e.g. to what 
happened in EAI (Email Address Internationalization), because there's no 
deployed base to worry about. But HTTP 2.0 is not yet ready for general 
review.

Regards,   Martin.