Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Thu, 06 October 2016 13:31 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 B7311129654 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 V5WFMkV6yTDp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:31:29 -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 03404129653 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bs8he-0006E6-PQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:27:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:27:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bs8he-0006E6-PQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bs8ha-0006Bw-PK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:27:10 +0000
Received: from o1.7nf.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.67]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bs8hQ-0002PJ-6w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:27:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=d9hxpFcWTxMJSgKA2ZGsSuXw9I0=; b=gOnc80+PCrE1KOxkWY 5/40pq2IoBhbv0ckTOP4U6V05m5bfXs7YmMmOxxhc4N4pDFoefu2A1oM/oVLqlpN 7CscObSmumPt+aU+BlsPLnBWWRNEpwFqitKwGO81HMX76gWviLUJYPuP8GgzgnCB KRkcK7xkKxEhIHFbl/uyHBueg=
Received: by filter0986p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0986p1mdw1.13222.57F6510838 2016-10-06 13:26:32.767069002 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-it0-f41.google.com (mail-it0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by ismtpd0002p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id qMSJasP5TX66aFTBJE7aMA for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:26:32.665 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 188so142077988iti.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkD+tz3jsq+K9D54Uk06uVmxR4Hm/Dx2xgoip8v9zT2LkF5876QkOFyNJlUM965BFdC/7bHyKPD//G0Uw==
X-Received: by 10.36.190.8 with SMTP id i8mr15361355itf.47.1475760392353; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.113.65 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <22539dc8-3adc-822a-609b-76e29afdd30a@gmx.de>
References: <22539dc8-3adc-822a-609b-76e29afdd30a@gmx.de>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:26:31 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrhTXtoFyVb1ppoxiJygZuvMfuyrehcRDqLPxYjpjaiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrhTXtoFyVb1ppoxiJygZuvMfuyrehcRDqLPxYjpjaiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c19e2bef5dfb9053e323dfd
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh5Kc+005iMjRJ+QRCyYk2q+1pL0zIgcpswgZY i6LbQdf5rzh/s14ZhE3KDlh5Oju+6tBrIscR9DDe3HafP1DXrjbeFNf+GQd4vJ6MeQHawuNblwBMTR qKFmsDOgj5ptHbZQJyrg88SLrAt1v6riHkJaUrl3O9nLgHeESO9cOdnr/oHkd8ZdbNkPa41RjFGIr6 k=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.67; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nf.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.644, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bs8hQ-0002PJ-6w 3d58a1f3f73f1fe98fa410b087db71e8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNrhTXtoFyVb1ppoxiJygZuvMfuyrehcRDqLPxYjpjaiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32505
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>

Julian, what course of action do you advocate?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> (see <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-latest.html>
> and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv/>)
>
> So when we made this a WG work item, the plan was to come up with *some*
> standard syntax, not necessarily the one proposed in the draft (based on
> JSON).
>
> We have discussed JSON a lot, and it definitively has a variety of
> problems, thus discussing other formats (like the one proposed by
> Poul-Henning) makes a lot of sense.
>
> However... there are early adopters out there, referencing the now dead
> pre-WG draft, such as:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-reporting-1-20160407/#header
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/clear-site-data/#header
>> https://wicg.github.io/feature-policy/#feature-policy-http-header-field
>>
>
> ...and my understanding is that their authors are willing to stick with
> JSON, willing to live with the known problems, and, in particular, not
> willing to switch to something else at this point. (Ilya?)
>
> Now we can't have these specs rely on an abandoned Internet Draft, right?
>
> So what do we do?
>
> a) "finish" draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv, documenting known issues, and publish
> this as informational or experimental?
>
> b) conclude work on this draft, and let me continues to finish my pre-WG
> draft (with the same goals as above)
>
> c) give up, and let the users of the draft figure out a solution?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>