Re: Call for Adoption: HTTP/2 Bis

Hello all,

Thanks for all the feedback and discussion on the HTTP/2 Bis effort!

Based on the expressed support, we will be adopting this as a working group document. We’ll plan on starting out with the limited scope that’s been proposed (and was previously discussed on GitHub). Of course, the working group can later decide to expand this scope if necessary; any extended scope would be handled as a separate adoption call to go into this document.


> On Dec 2, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <> 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.
> Cheers,
> --
> Mark and Tommy

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2020 22:27:01 UTC