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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 07 October 2016 06:10 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 422F61294AE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 23:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 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=-2.996, 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 xmSJrhHngX8S for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 23:09:59 -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 921D6129447 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 23:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bsOIC-0001wf-Td for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:06:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:06:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bsOIC-0001wf-Td@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 1bsOI9-0001vp-IY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:05:57 +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 1bsOI7-0005yC-R4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:05:57 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u9765Vp4009947; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 08:05:31 +0200
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 08:05:31 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161007060531.GC9917@1wt.eu>
References: <22539dc8-3adc-822a-609b-76e29afdd30a@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <22539dc8-3adc-822a-609b-76e29afdd30a@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.575, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bsOI7-0005yC-R4 e2cfcee0194136065b3f5bf2b52ec3f8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161007060531.GC9917@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32512
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>

Hi Julian,

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:16:34PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Now we can't have these specs rely on an abandoned Internet Draft, right?

No I disagree with you here. Drafts are drafts. They always have early
adopters (otherwise they don't make progress), but early adopters know
what risks they are taking. Otherwise you end up censoring yourself when
writing a draft just in case someone would implement it, which is not
acceptable at all.

> So what do we do?
> 
> a) "finish" draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv, documenting known issues, and publish
> this as informational or experimental?

It could be an option at least not to lose all the work done on this and
to serve as input for future designs (specifically the known issues). But
I don't know if that requires lots of work on your side or not. It could
end up like those few RFCs saying "foobar considered harmful", documenting
a design choice and its impacts and side effects.

> 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?

Well these two ones are not exclusive of the first one. If it is possible
to "flush the pipe" with option a) without spending too much effort on it,
the lowest the effort, the highest c) becomes prevalent. And in all cases,
b) definitely is up to you (I think).

Maybe the draft should be renamed to something like "The limitations of
using JSON for header field values" or something like this, explain the
design, the fact that there are known adopters, and enumerate the known
issues without too much details (just to discourage future adopters unless
they're fine with these limitations).

Just my two cents,
Willy