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

Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4F48EA4B.6050500@gmx.de>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-02-25 14:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...
> Yeah that's a tricky one. While one might like to
> see "one or more" in both places that might not be
> practical.
> In the proposal above the goal is that httpbis pick one
> or more but recognising the reality that we might not get
> a new proposal that httpbis will accept and that folks
> will really implement and deploy.
> So:
> Goal = one or more
> Reluctant recognition of reality = zero or more
> With this plan if httpbis in fact select zero new proposals
> that would represent a failure for all concerned. The "zero
> or more" term is absolutely not intended to provide a way to
> just punt on the question.
> Such a failure at the point where httpbis was re-chartering
> to work on a HTTP/2.0 selection with no better security than
> we now have is probably better evaluated as a whole - I
> guess the question for the IETF/IESG at that point would
> be whether the Internet would be better with or without
> such a beast, or better waiting a while until the security
> thing did get fixed.
> I can imagine an argument might ensue about that;-)
> ...

If we just need a new authentication scheme, nothing stops people from 
working on that right now. I don't see how that should affect HTTP/2.0.

If the "right" way to do security needs changes in the HTTP/1.1 
authentication framework, then we should fix/augment/tune HTTP/1.1. It's 
not going to go away anytime soon.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 14:04:42 UTC

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