Re: 9.2.2, Rough Consensus, and Working Code

Mike,

Digging into this a bit --

We have 24 reasonably current implementations listed, many of them demonstrating interop.

> On 5 Nov 2014, at 12:42 pm, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> By my count, the following implementations have working code or stated plans to implement the restrictions in 9.2.2:
> ·        Chrome/Google - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0148.html
> ·        Mozilla Firefox - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0143.html among others
> ·        Jetty – http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0190.html (best effort, can’t fully match)
>  
> The following have stated that they cannot or will not implement 9.2.2:
> ·        RedHat - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0198.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0014.html

RedHat does not have an implementation listed.

> ·        Apple - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014OctDec/0437.html

Apple is not currently implementing, as far as we know, so this is a statement of Michael's opinion, not implementation support. Additionally, Michael AFAIK does *not* represent Safari or Apple's HTTP stack; he's working on printing protocols (some of which use HTTP). Michael, please correct me if this is incorrect.

> ·        Apache - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JulSep/2248.html

Apache httpd is not currently listed as implementing, so this is a statement of Roy's opinion, not implementation support.

> ·        Wildfly - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JulSep/2260.html

Wildfly does not have an implementation listed. I believe Stuart also works on JBoss, which is also not currently on the implementation list.

> ·        HAProxy - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JulSep/2257.html

HAProxy does not have an implementation listed.

> ·        Microsoft (IE, IIS, etc.)

... Microsoft DOES have an implementation listed.

So claims of "working code" seem to be premature here. We don't determine everything by running code here, but when we use it to motivate an argument, let's try to get it right. Some of these folks may have implementations planned or in the works, but they haven't yet brought running code to the party. 

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 23:16:29 UTC