W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

RE: Call For Adoption HTTPbis BCP56bis

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:41:42 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR21MB0141CB1A68CA6E00636D9F2B874B0@MWHPR21MB0141.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
+1 on all of this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:50 PM
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Call For Adoption HTTPbis BCP56bis

Adopt.

BCP 56 hasn't just been overtaken by events, it's reached the point where it is an active hazard.  I'm glad that Mark started this effort.
I definitely think that this is worth doing.

I have some reservations about some of the document as proposed; the advice on using HTTP is excellent, but I don't think that the framing works especially well.  It's too close to the original BCP 56 text.
In particular, the introduction seems to make it clear that there is more choice and flexibility in terms of how much of HTTP can be used, where the document later mandates a clear cut: either use it properly or define a new protocol entirely (aka protocols based on HTTP).  I'd like to see this reframed.  I'd also like to see a little more text on the "protocols based on HTTP" part.  At least to the point that the reader is able to gain a better appreciation for how awful that choice truly is.

Of course, that's just from a brief read.  Adopting the work is a good way to get started on fixing those sorts of things.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Folks, I'm going to open up a 2 week call for adoption period to see 
> if the group has consensus for adopting work on a bis version of BCP56 
> (aka RFC 3205; On the use of HTTP as a Substrate).
>
> Mark introduced this work both on the general ART list and with a 
> presentation at IETF 99.
>
> His draft, which is the subject of the adoption call, can be found
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmnot.

> github.io%2FI-D%2Fbcp56bis%2F&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Bishop%40microsof
> t.com%7C4e5f1f43e0db4a75a22208d510f279ca%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
> 1db47%7C1%7C0%7C636433555965286760&sdata=9J%2FgUGV5QUF0bfEqrsxQxx5OwNR
> jq2rQLzZkwZwnVcg%3D&reserved=0
>
> The ART discussion is archived here:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i

> etf.org%2Fmail-archive%2Fweb%2Fart%2Fcurrent%2Fmsg00303.html&data=02%7
> C01%7CMichael.Bishop%40microsoft.com%7C4e5f1f43e0db4a75a22208d510f279c
> a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636433555965286760&sdat
> a=9du2%2FfGsyAXM6e31G25SIqDHRVew9COwXBWeHVVCYTM%3D&reserved=0
>
> The presentation at IETF 99 is here:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatat

> racker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F99%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-99-httpbis-sessb-b
> cp56bis%2F&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Bishop%40microsoft.com%7C4e5f1f43e0d
> b4a75a22208d510f279ca%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636
> 433555965286760&sdata=t8xE4hA8yVqZW%2BSTtBWHGphUzyHuYi2YtCN1xlcco5A%3D
> &reserved=0 (That's a pdf - trust your content-types!)
>
> The minutes from IETF 99 are here:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools

> .ietf.org%2Fwg%2Fhttpbis%2Fminutes%3Fitem%3Dminutes-99-httpbis-00.html
> &data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Bishop%40microsoft.com%7C4e5f1f43e0db4a75a2220
> 8d510f279ca%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6364335559652
> 86760&sdata=XeE4F8fSBqL3URkgQaCNIXMdSUD7OXlOwMJaIm9Gtu0%3D&reserved=0
>
> Personally, I think this is an important document to update, and 
> contemporaneous efforts like JMAP and DOH illustrate the relevancy.
>
> We'll leave the CfA open until October 27. I'm looking for arguments 
> pro or con and especially expressions of interest in collaborating and 
> reviewing the document. Thanks. Please weigh in.
>
> -Patrick
>

Received on Thursday, 12 October 2017 17:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:38 UTC