IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 06 October 2015 11:46 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5521B3FD1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 mGq_JPnZmIck for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 540361B3FCF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZjQdj-0004Uz-DT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:42:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:42:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZjQdj-0004Uz-DT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1ZjQdg-0004UI-MN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:42:36 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1ZjQdd-0001HY-HG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:42:35 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t96Bg7IF003004; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:42:07 +0200
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:42:07 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20151006114207.GC2985@1wt.eu>
References: <EFF24778-0AF9-40AF-AB08-85367FEB527A@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EFF24778-0AF9-40AF-AB08-85367FEB527A@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.276, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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: maggie.w3.org 1ZjQdd-0001HY-HG 0653f4377aaf2c687c87a0429e6212e8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20151006114207.GC2985@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30330
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 03:22:40PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> We discussed this document in Dallas:
>   <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-http-key>
> ... as well as on and off since then.
> 
> Based on the feedback received and after discussion with our Area Director, I
> believe that we should adopt this document as a WG product, with a target of
> Proposed Standard. 
> 
> Since I'm an author on the document, I've asked Martin Thomson to be Document
> Shepherd, to help judge consensus both of the CfA and during the document's
> LC, should we adopt it. He has graciously agreed.
> 
> Please comment on-list; we???ll make a decision about adoption at the end of
> next week. The result of this CfA will also help us determine how to go
> forward with the Client Hints document.

It's quite interesting, I'm already seeing the benefits it can provide
compared to Vary. For example it could be more permissive regarding the
Accept-Encoding header field (eg: "Key: accept-encoding; match=gzip").

I definitely think it should be adopted!

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email