W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: Call for Adoption: HTTP/2 Bis

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:59:13 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-Id: <1D269CD4-3759-4A80-A32F-9A6153EF0E63@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> On Dec 2, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> Based upon discussion at the interim and subsequent activity on the HTTP/2 issues list, the Chairs believe that the following is in-scope for a HTTP/2 bis effort:
> 
> * Incorporating errata
> * Makeing strictly editorial improvements
> * Aligning with the publication of http-core
> * Incorporating RFC8740 to align with the publication of TLS 1.3
> * Updating references to other specifications as necessary
> * Documenting additional security considerations
> * Providing implementer guidance where appropriate
> * Addressing problems or ambiguities where the affect interoperability, so long as the solution does decrease interoperability
> * Making the protocol more resistant to ossification, so long as doing so does not affect interoperability
> 
> This effort will not create a new version of HTTP; its output will not have a distinct ALPN identifier. As such, new features and backwards-incompatible changes like updates to the HPACK static table are out of scope. For the same reason, deprecating or removing Server Push and the Priority scheme is out of scope, although implementation advice might contextualise their use. 
> 
> Please indicate whether you support this approach to the work; the CfA will end in two weeks on 17 December.

I support doing the work to update the RFC, but I don't see any reason to
limit its scope as a chairs' mandate.

This is the HTTP WG. We should be working on HTTP enhancements.
We should not stop discussion of issues just because we don't
expect the HTTP/2 editor to write them into that specific draft.

Hence, I'd like this to be rephrased as:

There is work to be done on HTTP/2, here is what we know now, and that
will be done within *this* specific draft. Further additions will be subject to
WG consensus. Extensions, if any, may be discussed within other drafts.
Prior to WG last call, the WG will decide whether any such extensions
have progressed to the point of inclusion within HTTP/2.

Cheers,

....Roy
Received on Friday, 4 December 2020 19:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 4 December 2020 19:59:35 UTC