On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Sean Turner <turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:16, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
I propose that this document skip PS, and go straight to Internet Standard
to
accurately reflect the status of this document.
Six months after it gets an RFC# I’d completely support this.
Good god, no. HTTP/2 is quite complex, and it is likely that at least some
parts will turn out to be non-optimal. Please give the HTTPBIS WG at least a
year to shake out the protocol after wide deployment and constant use.
Rushing the WG just so we can feel good about slapping a near-meaningless
feel-good label on the spec is not a good process.
Counter-proposal: we let the people closest to the protocol, the WG that
created it, decide when to ask for STD status.
+1.
More generally, this all an attempt to solve a nonproblem. Essential documents
that have huge amounts of industry backing and where there's value seen in
progressing don't have any problem moving up the standards track. And HTTP/2 is
definitely such a document.
The problem is with smaller, arguably less essential documents, documents which
are important to their constituencies but which don't have the broad backing of
something like HTTP/2. That's where the road has proved to be too difficult to
travel.
Ned