- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:18:02 +0200
- To: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-04-09 22:38, Rob Trace wrote: > The BLOCKED frame is not something we are interested in and would rather > not add another late feature to the spec. The standard is already > slipping the schedule and we need to stop adding to the spec. > > Thanks!! > > -Rob > ... 1) I think it's safe to say that the WG is undecided about BLOCKED. Some people think it's important to have. Others don't think so and want to move on. One way to deal with this is to write it down quickly, put it into the draft, and remove it later on if problems come up. 2) Schedule... Well. This is an IETF activity. The schedule almost always slips. No, this isn't good, but it's a matter of fact, and it's better to be prepared for it. Things will take time; we need to pass two Last Calls, and get the IESG approval. The charter says we do WG LC this month, and we're (I believe) going to be at least two months late with that. If we add these two months (and that's the optimistic way to look at things) to the remaining milestones, we'll end up with IESG approval in January 2015. So everybody should be prepared not to ship any products with HTTP/2 turned on by default before early next year. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 08:19:01 UTC