- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:43:01 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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