- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:17:06 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <duao89prge1dtihrh01bcor4dn3ibjijsk@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>, Bjoer n Hoehrmann writes: >* 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 XYZ for BLA is desirable for a sufficient large market segment, the browser vendors will fold. (See also my email from yesterday.) I don't think we should try to lay down the law on what people SHALL implement, only how they MUST implement it, if they choose to. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 08:17:28 UTC