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: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:53:05 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNBKEU07dtaFLo2=A5U+J1Yrr=e0zk2TXWQQ5ToqMA_CxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20 November 2013 11:02, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/314>
> So far, we don't have any text for this issue, so I'm asking for proposals
> to be made now.
> If we can't get consensus (or if one isn't made), the default is to leave
> the specification as-is; that is, we'll continue to define how to use
> HTTP/2.0 for both http:// and https://, and implementations will choose
> which scheme(s) they support for the new protocol. You're welcome to
> explicitly propose the status quo, of course.

I explicitly propose the status quo: leave any recommendation (normative or
otherwise) out of the base HTTP/2.0 spec.  Instead I suggest we/you/someone
create a separate (informational?) document describing these issues.

At the least, I would imagine the base spec to be (hopefully) current and
useful for decades, whereas what various browsers do or don't support, or
even what browsers exist or matter in the market, might be a bit more
transient; thus any documentation that depends on them should be equally
versatile.  Updating or obsoleting an informational RFC would be a lot
easier than keeping a "that's *so* 2013" social reference in the HTTP/2.0
spec, and possibly pointing out to people that it, in fact, no longer
applies, or whatever.

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 01:53:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC