Re: Report on IETF situation for conneg-p

Thanks very much Lars. Helpful info. It's a slow process isn't it!

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, 11:30 , <lars.svensson@web.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for the silence on the IETF/conneg-p front: We're making somb
> progress, but it's slow.
>
> On March 1, we submitted the I-D [1] as a proposal for the IETF httpapi WG
> [2]. The reply from the chars was that they were hesitant if it fits in the
> scope of that WG and passed it on to the IETF dispatch WG to clarify which
> WG (httpapi or httpbis) is the most appropriate one.
>
> In the dispatch WG session during IETF 109, Ruben presented our proposal
> and received positive feedback [3].
>
> Since then, the dispath WG has initiated some discussion on their mailing
> list to find out which WG would be the best one [4]. While many
> participants find the proposal technically sound, there is some hesitance
> if it will find enough wide-spread uptake to justify an IETF
> standardisation process and they wish explicit commitment from
> implementors. I have poihted them to the conneg-p implementation report
> [5], but so far there have been no direct comments on that.
>
> Right now, we're waiting for the decision from the dispatch WG. There is
> to my knowledge no fixed date for that decision.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-svensson-profiled-representations/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/httpapi/gNW6BBxaQSsjtKHuTFwTkIld7L8/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-110-dispatch/
> [4] Thread starting at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/7bqI0sMs6kfEcfg5uP6i9Y7d55g/
> [5]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/svSb4JlPIh63liFf6n984NCxMlo/
>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>
> ACTION-441
>
>