IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP/2 has been approved

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
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 A43601A888A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 YNCP0CGfRXba for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [67.231.154.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952211A8851 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xpasc.com (h-68-164-244-186.snva.ca.megapath.net [68.164.244.186]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637A63F901 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:02:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1JK2VMj020482 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:32 -0800
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 has been approved
In-Reply-To: <B4CBAF0A-409B-4B45-B92E-CF148BF833B8@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1502191159170.4697@egate.xpasc.com>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WDJoh9TQD6HFvXUcOGHiF6Mlfds>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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 20:02:34 -0000


On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:16, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet Standard to
> >> accurately reflect the status of this document.
> >
> > Six months after it gets an RFC# I?d completely support this.
>
> 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.

There are at least two design choices I wouldn't accept as final w/o real
world experience. I don't want to open that discussion now but I will be
watching deployement results and feedback from 'outside' implementers.
No way should we jump to 'standard' now.

Dave Morris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email