W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: #148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:43:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJKU6ztSOrpwQkwS+dFF_+8kcvE3T=34eEWX=reLY6koeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> Yeh, why is "that updates this document" there?  Why do readers of
>> this document have to know about means that are provided in other
>> documents, such that "updates" is needed?
> We wanted to assure that any other way to establish reasonable assurances
> had sufficient vetting, and that someone reading this spec could find all the
> different ways to establish reasonable assurances.
> Any additional insights (hopefully in non-question form)?

Hm, I'm assume that wasn't meant to be snarky, though it sounds it.  I
needed to ask the question in order to answer the original question.

The way to assure the vetting is to say that they must be Standards
Track.  Experimental documents might or might not get sufficient

The way to ensure that people who read this spec can find all the
extensions is to make a registry.  Extensions shouldn't generally be
"updating" the original spec.

You can decide how you think the vetting will be accomplished, but if
you want it to be easy to find the new mechanisms, have this document
set up a registry and say that new mechanisms MUST be registered
there.  Then there's no concern about any "updates" rules with respect
to documents from other than Standards Track sources.

Received on Saturday, 27 February 2016 16:43:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC