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

Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:49:07 +0100
Message-ID: <54DB0973.1080700@gmx.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-02-11 06:01, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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.

Well, HTTP/2 integrates most of HTTP/1.1. It's basically just a new wire 
format.

> 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
> conversations.

RFC 2616 *was* a "draft" standard. That category has been removed, so 
the rewrite of the specs ended up as "proposed" again.

Once we're done with HTTP/2 + satellite specs, I'd vote for applying 
errata to RFC 723* and to move them to full standard.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 07:49:53 UTC

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