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

Re: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:41:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfnYLqtyR8i-S-MGR5=UJG1jhHHdHEmxfbNNpxGJR4bqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Aug 4, 2012 5:27 PM, "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
[Snip]
>>
>> Work will begin using draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 as a starting point;
proposals are to be expressed in terms of changes to that document. Note
that consensus is required both for changes to the document and anything
that remains in the document.
>>
>> $Because something is in the initial document does not imply that there
is consensus around the feature or how it is specified.$
>
>
> I think this was already covered by "consensus is required both for
changes to the document and anything that remains in the document".
>
>>
>>
>> $The outcome of this WG is HTTP/2.0, not SPDY. It is important that
there is no confusion about the relationship between HTTP/2.0 and SPDY as
we do not want to have dueling specifications in this area.$
>
>
> There are no dueling specifications.  This working group is working on
HTTP/2.0.  We can say it again, but it probably doesn't decrease the
paranoia ;-)
>

The paranoia is well justified I think given how other notable specs have
developed recently. I think it would be great to know if the existing SPDY
folks are intending to continue parallel development on SPDY or go all in
working on http 2.0.

- James
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 00:41:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 5 August 2012 00:41:46 GMT