IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP/2 has been approved

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 19 February 2015 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 913EE1A90C3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Dm8QD9bzq1Cr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D74A01A90AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BAA20012; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:24:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A5F2663A21; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9145F637F4; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 has been approved
In-Reply-To: <96332FA9-9C09-4AD8-A76E-41593AA2652B@piuha.net>
References: <96332FA9-9C09-4AD8-A76E-41593AA2652B@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:20 -0500
Message-ID: <20423.1424358980@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fXMXBI3q8TfCfIYGVtb2MbKGP-Q>
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 15:16:56 -0000

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.

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.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email