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

Re: Straw-man for our next charter

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:55:32 -0700
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <16625E66-FF5E-4ED8-BA12-87E4D694903D@mnot.net>
To: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
So, we need to have some more detail here.

My take is that we're already implicitly starting from HTTP/1.1. I.e., I'd be very surprised (and concerned) if we found ourselves rewriting any of parts 2-7; all of our changes *should* be confined to part 1. 

And, while I can imagine starting from part 1 and changing it section-by-section, I do wonder if it offers significant benefit over writing something that just aims to replace p1.

All of that said -- it's pretty clear that the current proposals are not written as analogues to p1, and probably need to move in that direction.

Cheers,


On 27/07/2012, at 2:30 PM, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com> wrote:

> +1.  Starting from 1.1 is an interesting approach and worth discussing.
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> -Rob
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:15 PM
> To: Amos Jeffries
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Straw-man for our next charter
> 
> 
> On 27/07/2012, at 4:10 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/07/2012 5:27 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Hi Amos,
>>> 
>>> On 25/07/2012, at 10:02 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> Work will begin using XXX as a starting point; all proposals are to 
>>>>> be expressed in terms of changes to the that document.
>>>> I just think I'll throw a spanner in the general direction of the works here....
>>>> 
>>>> How realistic is it to expect the HTTPbis 1.1 draft documents fill that role? At least we can guarantee that modifications to adjust them for 2.0 specifics will not loose or add any features unintentionally that could affect HTTP/1.1 compatibility.
>>> I'm not sure what your concern is here...
>> 
>> concern 1) is the feature parity between the HTTP/1 drafts and any other document that gets picked. ie workload to get the new doc completed.
>> 
>> concern 2) is the politcal battle to get document X to meet the WG goals.
>> 
>> Much like what I said in my expression of interest summary. The HTTP/2 drafts on the tables (own one included) do not come up to scratch for HTTP/2 starting points.
>> 
>> I know a lot of people have interest in SPDY, but to make that the HTTP/2 base doc there are a fair chunk of things which will need pruning out - if only because they are new semantics. It is probably not a good idea for the WG to start off facing that political battle to ensure its semantically seamless to HTTP/1.1. The other documents are bare-bones with specific focus on framing improvement over WG drafts part1-2.
> 
> Aha. I was assuming that would come up; please discuss (details would help).
> 
> 
>> However taking the HTTPbis draft documents and replacing sections of them with SPDY mechanisms, frame design, etc as we agree on particulars - that has a clear chance of faster success.
> 
> That's an interesting approach. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2012 18:55:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 July 2012 18:56:04 GMT