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

draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:16:34 +0200
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <22539dc8-3adc-822a-609b-76e29afdd30a@gmx.de>
Hi there,

and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv/>)

So when we made this a WG work item, the plan was to come up with *some* 
standard syntax, not necessarily the one proposed in the draft (based on 

We have discussed JSON a lot, and it definitively has a variety of 
problems, thus discussing other formats (like the one proposed by 
Poul-Henning) makes a lot of sense.

However... there are early adopters out there, referencing the now dead 
pre-WG draft, such as:

> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-reporting-1-20160407/#header
> https://www.w3.org/TR/clear-site-data/#header
> https://wicg.github.io/feature-policy/#feature-policy-http-header-field

...and my understanding is that their authors are willing to stick with 
JSON, willing to live with the known problems, and, in particular, not 
willing to switch to something else at this point. (Ilya?)

Now we can't have these specs rely on an abandoned Internet Draft, right?

So what do we do?

a) "finish" draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv, documenting known issues, and 
publish this as informational or experimental?

b) conclude work on this draft, and let me continues to finish my pre-WG 
draft (with the same goals as above)

c) give up, and let the users of the draft figure out a solution?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 13:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 6 October 2016 13:17:17 UTC