- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:49:07 +0100
- 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