Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 9DD3E1A0274 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 IkTo8y9L3XiM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCF951A027D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1WnXGE-0006aF-91 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 17:58:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 17:58:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1WnXGE-0006aF-91@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1WnXG2-0006ZH-W1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 17:58:23 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1WnXG1-0006D2-Lv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 22 May 2014 17:58:22 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id vb8so4231546obc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qVuBXoEdvdZIs/uEXPpAjG1QFPUeh0GaujuUnG3lWmE=; b=rjS/plNhrqR4UDVbDZwoMdpFnzD9dXgYMSFFPV5XHQ7+CIFwgAXh4+O1J/IisvpGm5 52oivovymN4Rw6fYXP7N2ExlLYB+FTF7WV++NttXjGA7Dnm99EnQA3zQvAij5RLM9bp9 xSTSc9Tk9y9/+quQ9evzECadDbe0i/0EVxRIkgR41XijGPgTmJTqj47DEqDjjsYDAPJg 9qU6bnpFedY0QCTJXf1C7g+dpoUU82jUdZvvZ9ILipCvq3KLzR2JY79k8mg/fOXp0flk 7kj03GOnSVL3w+R4hlMroKJUj98dE+DZTofYQz8ywus9kNtTIlKDzRX1N3jeqnoO8osD 25NA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.115.199 with SMTP id jq7mr28373100obb.70.1400781475488; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.74.230 with HTTP; Thu, 22 May 2014 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeNnEvtgoVwJv1MeOPcZKhjyUYSkUzwAmBNLnND_O+2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140522172435.21175.94088.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <239431af5fe34e57a704ea52f84e1991@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABP7RbeNnEvtgoVwJv1MeOPcZKhjyUYSkUzwAmBNLnND_O+2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:57:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfqbp+5MV3ujzvgTAHW-Ov_uDkY-PMxZPWKhWnvZ4CX6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6781204129eb04fa00daf9"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.714, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1WnXG1-0006D2-Lv 932c82662e4919b36f4eb5609fcfa2bd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfqbp+5MV3ujzvgTAHW-Ov_uDkY-PMxZPWKhWnvZ4CX6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/23766
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>

Yup.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1... many times over.
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Mike Bishop
> <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > When we decided in Zurich to foreclose the option to extend HTTP/2, we
> > thought that we were close to done with the basic protocol.  And it’s
> true
> > -- the fundamentals of HTTP/2 haven’t changed all that much since then.
>  But
> > various cases keep coming up where certain parties need to add one more
> > feature.  While these aren’t core to the HTTP/2 protocol, they’re also
> not
> > worth versioning the protocol for later, and so we’ve added them to the
> spec
> > for experimentation as optional components.
> >
> > This draft proposes that many of these would be perfectly valid use-cases
> > for extensions, and that we might make progress more quickly if we add a
> > simple extension model.  I believe that the time we take in getting the
> > extension model right will be more than offset by the ability to unblock
> the
> > protocol and still handle new situations as they arise, even though we’re
> > late in the process.
> >
> > I want to emphasize that the goal of the extension model is simplicity in
> > the core protocol, and I’d welcome feedback on how to simplify it
> further.
> >
> > Sent from Windows Mail
> >
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎May‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎24‎ ‎AM
> > To: Mike Bishop, Mike Bishop
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Mike Bishop and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:  draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames
> > Revision: 01
> > Title:  Extension Frames in HTTP/2
> > Document date: 2014-05-22
> > Group:  Individual Submission
> > Pages:  18
> > URL:
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
> > Status:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames/
> > Htmlized:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01
> > Diff:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document describes a proposed modification to the HTTP/2
> >    specification to better support the creation of extensions without
> >    the need to version the core protocol or invoke additional protocol
> >    identifiers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
>
>