Re: HTTP/2 has been approved

[[e-mail]]

> On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:16, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> 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.

+1.

More generally, this all an attempt to solve a nonproblem. Essential documents
that have huge amounts of industry backing and where there's value seen in
progressing don't have any problem moving up the standards track. And HTTP/2 is
definitely such a document.

The problem is with smaller, arguably less essential documents, documents which
are important to their constituencies but which don't have the broad backing of
something like HTTP/2. That's where the road has proved to be too difficult to
travel.

				Ned