Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv: what's next

Julian, what course of action do you advocate?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> (see <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv-latest.html>
> and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv/>)
>
> So when we made this a WG work item, the plan was to come up with *some*
> standard syntax, not necessarily the one proposed in the draft (based on
> JSON).
>
> We have discussed JSON a lot, and it definitively has a variety of
> problems, thus discussing other formats (like the one proposed by
> Poul-Henning) makes a lot of sense.
>
> However... there are early adopters out there, referencing the now dead
> pre-WG draft, such as:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-reporting-1-20160407/#header
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/clear-site-data/#header
>> https://wicg.github.io/feature-policy/#feature-policy-http-header-field
>>
>
> ...and my understanding is that their authors are willing to stick with
> JSON, willing to live with the known problems, and, in particular, not
> willing to switch to something else at this point. (Ilya?)
>
> Now we can't have these specs rely on an abandoned Internet Draft, right?
>
> So what do we do?
>
> a) "finish" draft-ietf-httpbis-jfv, documenting known issues, and publish
> this as informational or experimental?
>
> b) conclude work on this draft, and let me continues to finish my pre-WG
> draft (with the same goals as above)
>
> c) give up, and let the users of the draft figure out a solution?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>