W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:05:39 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1DAEAC34-0B15-4C43-A084-F9AF55D959E7@mnot.net>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Bjoern,

On 20/11/2013, at 4:27 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> No one has yet proposed that we mandate implementing HTTP/2.0 *without*
>> TLS yet -- we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Talking about
>> "subverting the standards process" is thus WAY too premature.
> 
> To make this short, permit me to try an analogy. What if Chairs said:
> 
>  To reiterate -- some browser folks have stated that they will not be 
>  implementing XYZ for WebRTC in their products, so unless they become
>  convinced otherwise, there will still be a *market* requirement to
>  implement ABC if you want to get the benefit of WebRTC with the
>  broadest selection of clients.
> 
> Who will argue to make XYZ mandatory-to-implement for WebRTC browsers?
> 
> If somebody does, and they convince all but those browser folks that XYZ
> should be mandatory-to-implement, but 80% of deployed web browsers end
> up not implementing XYZ, then there is no Standards process, just the
> browser folks doing whatever they want.
> 
> If nobody does because it's obviously pointless to argue, then there is
> no Standards process either.
> 
> And if the browser folks are not convinced, but submit to the Standards
> process, then there would be no "market requirement" for anything else.
> 
> Over in the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers Working Group the
> "browser folks" have, as far as I have been able to follow, comitted to
> the Standards process. I expect no less of them, or others, here.

Your analogy doesn't hold, because we haven't agreed to make anything MTI, encryption or not, and this thread is literally the start of discussion for the latter.   You're also spinning a pretty big hypothetical about a possible future outcome in a different WG with a very different set of constraints, and one that arguably would not represent consensus either. 

The "standards process" is not a means of forcing one's will upon others; that doesn't work, as is proven by the litter of MUSTs and SHOULDs ignored in specs over the years. That's why I said "...unless they become convinced otherwise." Failure to interoperate is one way to convince people, IME; it just takes some time.

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 06:05:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC