Outcomes of the SF Interim Meeting

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 26 June 2013 06:27 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AD221E80C4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxfnI8OgNyVu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B839221F9BFC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UrjBq-0004Rj-M6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:26:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:26:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UrjBq-0004Rj-M6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UrjBb-0004NB-5q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:26:35 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UrjAa-0001Hx-Ey for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:26:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.171.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0ACAE50A73 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C3A9DB20-6EDB-4269-8EE0-58A99BB0F849@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:25:22 +1000
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.378, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UrjAa-0001Hx-Ey 638ceb777953b38650053cc1db154bb2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Outcomes of the SF Interim Meeting
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/C3A9DB20-6EDB-4269-8EE0-58A99BB0F849@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18383
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>

For those who couldn't make it to the SF Interim, we had a very productive meeting. 

There were many decisions made regarding the issues; for complete information, please take a look at the minutes:
  https://github.com/http2/wg_materials/blob/master/interim-13-06/minutes.md
  
... and the notes on individual issues in the issues list:
   https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues?milestone=&page=1&state=open

Two things are worth special notice:

1) We decided to use the joint proposal for header compression as a starting point going forward:
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ruellan-http-header-compression-00.txt

This will be published as a separate WG draft shortly.

2) We created a Layering Task Force to re-arrange the specification and make its structure more apparent.

The Layering TF should conclude shortly, recommending a rewritten spec to the WG. Once they do, we need to confirm that, incorporate any remaining issues, and publish a new draft.

That draft will be the one that we are targeting for our "First Implementation Draft", and that we'll (with luck and hard work) have implementations of going into Hamburg.

See the list of issues assigned for that milestone here:
  https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues?milestone=1&page=1&state=open

If you have questions or concerns about any of these decisions, please do bring them up on the list ASAP.

Regards,



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