Client Hints to Experimental

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 10 August 2016 04:17 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 6825612D732 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 CZTj15ANgq1P for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:17:51 -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 7508A12D72A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bXKtI-0003Fq-SC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:13:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:13:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bXKtI-0003Fq-SC@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bXKt5-0003F1-Sl for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:13:03 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bXKt4-0002If-Cf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:13:03 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD92E22E253; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:12:34 +1000
Message-Id: <DA78D681-49B0-4A12-AD45-4E10DD64CF6C@mnot.net>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.351, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bXKt4-0002If-Cf 2b0a8a96355ca7481060cccde08f9a83
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Client Hints to Experimental
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/DA78D681-49B0-4A12-AD45-4E10DD64CF6C@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32243
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>

As discussed in Berlin <https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf96/minutes.md#client-hints>, Ilya is cleaning up the last few issues on the Client Hints spec, and it's waiting on Fetch integration.

However, we still only have implementation in Blink-based browsers; so far we haven't seen substantial interest in implementing this by other browsers.

Given that this feature needs broad adoption by browsers to be really useful, this is concerning. After some discussion with Patrick and Ilya, I'd like to suggest that we change the Intended Status for this spec to Experimental, since this seems to fall into guideline 4 at <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html>. As an Experimental spec, it would be a document of how Blink is doing this, and if their deployment encourages other implementations, we can shift it to Standards Track later on.

What do people think? Please give feedback on the list and/or at <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/224>.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/