Re: HTTP/2 has been approved
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 15:42 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 0FC3A1A90EE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 0nKakYU-ZDrx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03371A9121 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labgq15 with SMTP id gq15so344264lab.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/CY5ms0LA1bhVAr66ACnJ7iYfcng7XSEwQvRaavE1+c=; b=nZJ353eWjfN9QWI8J0cad6M0cFEjxOBhN5DIBZXN0c9YLWIoC1uGB66m6rtbBpy/tX KOe6l7deK1Ouo+0CYgvk5kCUT8XPvkaKGESef68Jr97ISrQk08l/4L04fgtgah8l1xoc kTL9z0/b6jhkRnpN+nKMxxsY2kAURq/HqfNlhHQQJcQq3HvHULOuTf/VYs/Izz+zdqsF j57nrmysm5EW4uwgeNbVIHTXi+vQZoWtCy/bRXCw3i2LLUAHcsMhCLXU70geOogXA6LS DxzoIUbKl5XHGMTQFANWshvD9Wiml9t0voG1j6yf/13G71/wwjn/MUPH4CmM7OdDiPMZ 8IFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.242.132 with SMTP id wq4mr4451494lac.79.1424360526091; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.113.3.165 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20423.1424358980@sandelman.ca>
References: <96332FA9-9C09-4AD8-A76E-41593AA2652B@piuha.net> <20423.1424358980@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:42:06 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _nKZH3WfvjFv8TC7rMj-lV_285I
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhS2KtpQX3uR0yVtN5sNTtbU2CsGmburfFc9-iqGssC8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 has been approved
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113417f4309bbf050f72c7e1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uiWUynrzp5rcDuacx3Kvw-S0AQ0>
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 15:42:11 -0000
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > 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. > Yep, this change was one of the reasons we went from the three step process to two. The requirement for getting a proposed standard published in 2005 was way higher than getting to DRAFT status in 1995. Not sure about short cutting from Proposed Standard to Standard. I think the process is still bjorked but in a different way. One problem is that we have a bunch of RFCs that have widely varying quality and status but to the rest of the world an RFC is an RFC. But the bigger problem is that the levels are mostly static. BEEP was rushed through IETF process and is still PROPOSED STANDARD despite the fact nobody has ever used it or expressed an interest in doing so. HTTP/2 is really a maintenance effort on an existing IETF standard. Only I don't think it ever got that status (would check the ietf.org site is down right now). STANDARD should mean that a specification is current. So if HTTP/2 is the best HTTP specification then it should have the STANDARD designation. There is a little complication though. HTTP/2 is optimized for Web browsing. Which is fine. HTTP/1.1 is also used as a presentation layer for Web Services and for Web Sockets. So this isn't a case where HTTP/2 is a straight upgrade. It is an upgrade for the original intended purpose of HTTP but not necessarily advantageous for non browsing applications. I think we probably want to think about bifurcating the HTTP moniker to reflect that. HTTP/T for Web Sockets (which establish transport over HTTP) and HTTP/P for a stripped down version for use as a presentation layer for Web Services maybe.
- HTTP/2 has been approved Jari Arkko
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Michael Richardson
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Phillip Hallam-Baker
- HTTP/2 should be published at Internet Standard Michael Richardson
- Re: HTTP/2 should be published at Internet Standa… Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Sean Turner
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Paul Hoffman
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Jari Arkko
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Eliot Lear
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved David Morris
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved ned+ietf
- Re: HTTP/2 should be published at Internet Standa… Larry Masinter
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Julian Reschke
- Re: HTTP/2 has been approved Julian Reschke