- From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:08:49 -0500
- To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption@ietf.org, "Mike Bishop" <michael.bishop@microsoft.com>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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