IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP/2 has been approved

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Thu, 19 February 2015 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D3A1A005A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:51:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hN-0W-qnIXOe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8EC1A001C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netb ([89.204.130.64]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lfolq-1XmfP81Sx8-00pJAh; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:50:58 +0100
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 has been approved
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <n0ccealpqih764mriun8sm3ill426b0ui9@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <96332FA9-9C09-4AD8-A76E-41593AA2652B@piuha.net> <20423.1424358980@sandelman.ca> <D4E24112-71EA-498F-BCF1-A202E97B677C@ieca.com> <B4CBAF0A-409B-4B45-B92E-CF148BF833B8@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <B4CBAF0A-409B-4B45-B92E-CF148BF833B8@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0sdowBSdvtBgZz+OeI72SY0OLSy8CoJ1VAOgXz21nQS527993B+ kpUlYBokh6pYORhLG8CJZt48/CJUdrDVJjZnIUFSnUSg59Ib9hBPDs+iSKY7ydz9nhopsiB mVWl0FSvt3+d8cqUmOrXFPx1y2zdnBUsp6RTTSQcK1wpJaiJpT+pUFviY5bg40InCr/rC/y pbLM+cFW06BJLS6GnK4mA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Oh4xLYF1YdF6MxVpItiSs96s7Z4>
Cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:51:07 -0000

* Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Good god, no. HTTP/2 is quite complex, and it is likely that at least 
>some parts will turn out to be non-optimal. Please give the HTTPBIS WG 
>at least a year to shake out the protocol after wide deployment and 
>constant use. Rushing the WG just so we can feel good about slapping a 
>near-meaningless feel-good label on the spec is not a good process.
>
>Counter-proposal: we let the people closest to the protocol, the WG
>that created it, decide when to ask for STD status.

Indeed. And I note that some participants preferred Experimental status
for the document for the time being.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email