Re: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Firefox and Chrome are committed to HTTP/2.0, it will happen.  But, Mark's
current outline for HTTP/2.0 is a 2 year effort.  There are research areas
in progress today which aren't ready for standardization yet (so they don't
belong in HTTP/2.0) and that research will continue.  It's not competing
specs - its just ongoing research.

mike





>  - James
>