HTTP/2 should be published at Internet Standard

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{I've changed the subject}

Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> I'm very concerned about this part:
    >>
    >>> A key point in the protocol development process was the iteration the
    >>> working group did between protocol updates, and implementations and
    >>> testing. Certain draft protocol versions were labelled by the working
    >>> group as "implementation drafts", and the participants -- many web
    >>> browser and web server providers -- updated their implementations and
    >>> tested out the protocol changes. Most of the interim meetings
    >>> included part of a day spent on hands-on interoperability testing and
    >>> discussion. The result is a thoroughly validated protocol that has
    >>> been shown to interoperate and that meets the needs of many major
    >>> stakeholders.
    >>
    >> It sure seems to me like those "implementation drafts" are what used
    >> to be called proposed standards.

    > Proposed standards also have to go through working group last call, AD
    > review, IETF last call, IESG review, SecDir review, GenArt review, a
    > six-week waiting period in the RFC editor’s queue, and AUTH48. I don’t
    > think we can afford to do that for a single document every 4-6 months,
    > like httpbis did for HTTP/2.

Thank you, you see to have found a list of things that we could "not do"
prior to PS, and that would reduce a huge amount of work.

    >> What I see is a new step in the standardization process, along with a
    >> view that the step after internet-draft seems to include proven
    >> interoperability.

    > Running code has always been part of the deal, at least as something we
    > would like to have. Besides, the process continued even when some
    > implementations did not interoperate.

Running code is usually the bar between PS and IS.
Of course, we like running-code, and the earlier the better.

    >> I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet
    >> Standard to accurately reflect the status of this document.

    > There is currently pretty close to zero deployment in the real world. A
    > bunch of lab implementations that managed to interoperate in a bake-off
    > is not an indication of something ready for Internet Standard. But
    > don’t you agree that publishing a document with the bunch of lab
    > implementations is better than publishing it without them?

Of course; I also worry that we are our own worst enemies: we raise the bar
very high, and then we become overworked, and can't find superheroes that can
do everything.

I get the impression that SPD has had a lot of real world use.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-