W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:10:38 +1300
Message-ID: <4F200D5E.1060803@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 25/01/2012 9:51 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message<0C615921-7EE0-4E53-93F9-8B406D1561A1@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
>> Thank you. My *personal* responses below.
> Appreciated.
> I have two problems with the proposed project:  The objective and the
> timescale.
> The timescale is just rubbish, it's not going to happen and we know it.
> Pretending otherwise just makes everybody look like ceremonial fools.
> But worse: the objetive is almost guaranteed to become a failure,
> unless managed very ruthlessly.
> If there ever were a protocol subject to Second Systems Syndrome,
> it would be HTTP/2.0.  Everybody and his web-programmer is going
> to have opinions and we'll never get through their "input" in finite
> time.
> Print out RFC2616 and the HTTP/1.1bis, put them next to each other
> and imagine what the next pile will be like.
> Then do the same with the relevant IPv4 and IPv6 RFC's.
> Then think.
> Being old enough to remember the beneficial reign of Jon Postel, I
> want to attack this problem an entirely different way, and use a
> criteria which historically have been much more predictive of
> protocol success.
> My suggestion:
> Make a public call for HTTP/2.0 protocol proposals.

Before this can happen I think we need to discuss and agree on one thing.

Does the 2.x variance need to be limited to the framing structure 
(request-line CRLF headers CRLF CRLF [entity]) or is it going to be 
delving down into the structure of that "headers" segment?
  ie is it going to be a replacement of the part 2 messaging draft. 
Keeping the drafts 1 and 3-7 as-is? or is it going to supercede them all 
with RFCs using different BNF and new normative limits on some things?

> Rules:
>      1.  Each proposal SHALL be described in a single ID.
>      2.  That ID SHALL be 29 pages or less.
>      3.  The ID SHALL be an RFC-ready description of the protocol.
>      4.  Deadline is 2012-06-01 00:00:00 UTC
>      5.  We decide what to do next after the deadline.
> Unless we get at good proposal that way, HTTP/2.0 is not worth our time.
> Poul-Henning

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 14:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC