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

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

> 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?)


"Not willing" is too strong, I think. Perhaps a more accurate description
is: aware of the limitations previously discussed; cautiously moving
forward despite said limitations because there are pains that we need to
address [1]; willing to consider concrete alternative proposals if and when
they become available and have reasonable support from community -- i.e.
not a spaceship design that we can use in >5 years.

[1] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/225#issue-170537461