Re: Issue 271 of 5987bis - Proposed Standard or Internet Standard?

On 2017/01/16 15:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2017-01-16 04:33, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> On 2017/01/16 10:29, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Personal hat -
>>> I'd prefer Proposed Standard; I don't think we want to overly promote
>>> the use of this encoding in new header fields, so calling it an
>>> Internet Standard sends the wrong message.
>> Fully agreed!
>> Also, Julian mentioned that it might be additional work to move it to
>> full Standard, but if this is ever necessary, it can happen as part of
> No, I didn't (as far as I remember).

Sorry, I interpreted the "*additional* hurdles" in your mail that way. 
On rereading, it looks like you meant to point more to the additional 
hurdle of "not being more mature than HTTP" than to the additional 
process-wise hurdle of moving from Proposed to Standard separately.

>> moving HTTP 1.1 to full standard, with very little overhead.
> That's an interesting proposal; however, I'd be very surprised if those
> who don't want it to be full standard would support integration into the
> next set of base specs.

There are probably three sets of people: Those who wouldn't mind 
Standard now, those who don't think going to Standard now is a good 
idea, and those who might oppose going to Standard even if HTTP 1.1 
moves up. I guess we'll see when we get there.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Monday, 16 January 2017 07:43:39 UTC