Re: Time to refresh HTTP/2?

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 28 August 2020 11:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4217F3A081D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2E8VLlBIzzpW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4153A0816 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kBcXX-0002J0-NO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:27:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:27:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kBcXX-0002J0-NO@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kBcXW-0002IE-Ev for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:27:26 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kBcXU-0002AG-3x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:27:26 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 07SBR8Bu029321; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:27:08 +0200
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:27:08 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20200828112708.GA29305@1wt.eu>
References: <4facac0f-867d-4947-840c-fcd675a09d51@www.fastmail.com> <785148de-dd24-6446-2430-759d580a8984@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <785148de-dd24-6446-2430-759d580a8984@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kBcXU-0002AG-3x 96f9aa8b0f60d60d838771bed6a04fa9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time to refresh HTTP/2?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200828112708.GA29305@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37967
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:59:03PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 28.08.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Martin Thomson:
> > All this tiresome talk about terminology got me thinking about the value of action over words.
> > 
> > So, I present to you a proposed update to RFC 7540:
> > 
> >    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-httpbis-http2bis-00
> > 
> > This only does:
> > 
> > * removes unnecessarily divisive terminology
> > * rolls up errata
> > 
> > Obviously, there is a long and slippery slope of things that we might do from this point.  However, I think that it would be good if we could just publish a minimal update without getting embroiled in difficult and time-consuming design questions.
> > 
> > The diff is mostly just stuff that xml2rfc does differently five years on:
> > 
> >    https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://ietf.org/rfc/rfc7540.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-httpbis-http2bis-00.txt
> > 
> > Or you can peruse the individual changes I made:
> > 
> >    https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/compare/master...martinthomson:main
> 
> +1
> 
> Actually, I was going to suggest that as well, but mainly to align
> HTTP/2 with the new core specs - it would be good to say how the cleanup
> affects the references from HTTP/2.

+1 as well. Wouldn't it be an opportunity to also reference (or even merge)
the extensions such as RFC8441 which adds the ":protocol" pseudo-header ?

Willy