Re: Call For Adoption HTTPbis BCP56bis

Hi Patrick,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:51:06PM -0400, Patrick McManus wrote:
> Folks, I'm going to open up a 2 week call for adoption period to see if the
> group has consensus for adopting work on a bis version of BCP56 (aka RFC
> 3205; On the use of HTTP as a Substrate).
> 
> Mark introduced this work both on the general ART list and with a
> presentation at IETF 99.
> 
> His draft, which is the subject of the adoption call, can be found
> https://mnot.github.io/I-D/bcp56bis/
> 
> The ART discussion is archived here:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/art/current/msg00303.html
> 
> The presentation at IETF 99 is here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-httpbis-sessb-bcp56bis/
> (That's a pdf - trust your content-types!)
> 
> The minutes from IETF 99 are here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/minutes?item=minutes-99-httpbis-00.html
> 
> Personally, I think this is an important document to update, and
> contemporaneous efforts like JMAP and DOH illustrate the relevancy.
> 
> We'll leave the CfA open until October 27. I'm looking for arguments pro or
> con and especially expressions of interest in collaborating and reviewing
> the document. Thanks. Please weigh in.

I wasn't aware of this doc and it's really nice and an important piece in the
puzzle. I support adoption as well. I'm often explaining to people who do
whatever with HTTP that they're probably using HTTP as an alternative to TCP
because it supports meta-data, states and proxying but that it's not a reason
for reinventing their own variation of the protocol otherwise they lose all
the benefits. At least now we have a doc listing such bad practices an
explaining how to use the protocol correctly.

Thanks,
Willy

Received on Thursday, 12 October 2017 02:21:29 UTC