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: 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>
Message-ID: <42727.1384935426@critter.freebsd.dk>
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

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