W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:01:18 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUUNfHrX=KTp307F+war3nxNW6XDJGspeKCu3chDAZwBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11 February 2015 at 14:14, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
> Um, with all due respect HTTP/1.1 is a Proposed Standard with a lot of years of deployment, while HTTP/2.0 is *almost* a Draft Standard.  Why are we talking about "a deprecated 1.x"?

Well... We're headed for "Proposed Standard", which is the same status
as HTTP/1.1, so from a process standpoint they will be on equal
footing.  But there is no question that HTTP/1.1 is far more mature
and interoperable.

My interpretation is that 1.1 hasn't advanced to Draft or Full
Standard is some combination of conservatism and a general
unwillingness to do the necessary busywork, but I'm sure that Julian
would have a more precise answer since I always tune out during those

You are probably reading too much into the language people use though.
Many of us here simply want to use HTTP/2 for all the reasons that we
decided to work on it and implement it.
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 05:01:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC