Re: HTTP/2 has been approved

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

> It sure seems to me like those "implementation drafts" are what used to be
> called proposed standards.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet Standard to
> accurately reflect the status of this document.

As others have noted, once there is real-world deployment and
not just implementations, we should consider that. Status of
various specifications should be accurately reflected.

But I want to take this discussion back to possibly more
relevant question of how we make standards. I think you
are asking if this level of ‘validation’ is a requirement or
even a desirable property of the standards process. And
I think we can immediately respond to the first question,
and respond indirectly to the second question.

There is absolutely no requirement anywhere that something
like this should be done in a particular standards effort. However,
I think it made in this particular case, and the WG chose to go
through this effort. I think that was a reasonable decision. In
general, I actually prefer to see more code and development
mixed as a part of the process of getting to standards. However,
it should not be a requirement, and whether that even make
sense in a particular situation should be up to the WG
and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Jari