Re: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10: (with COMMENT)

On 15 Mar 2017, at 22:33, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 16 March 2017 at 12:56, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> - Abstract: I agree with the GenART review that the limitations 
>> should be
>> mentioned in the abstract, or at least early in the document.
>
> I believe that this was addressed in
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/ca56fd8365d

Yep.

>
>> - Note to readers: Will this stay in the RFC?
>
> I've removed this from the working copy.  There was no expectation of
> it remaining:
>
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/2bc987fe8677
>

Okay.

>> - Introduction: What is the nature of the experiment? Is there an
>> expectation to promote it to standards track in the future? Even if 
>> the
>> answer is "We need to get implementation/deployment experience", it's
>> helpful to say "out loud".
>
> There are two aspects to the experiment: "does it even work" has been
> a concern raised (that is, across a range of deployments), and "will
> anyone bother" is the obvious other.
>
> Maybe add to the introduction:
>
> "This experiment aims to gain deployment experience with this 
> mechanism."
>
> I'm not sure how useful that is given that many (if not all)
> experimental RFCs have the same goal.

I wish that were true, but I think a lot of experimental RFCs are 
experimental because people didn't agree to make them standards track, 
but still wanted them published.

Ben.

Received on Thursday, 16 March 2017 04:09:23 UTC