Subject: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:56:51 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm balloting "yes", but I have a few minor comments:

- Abstract: I agree with the GenART review that the limitations should be
mentioned in the abstract, or at least early in the document.

- Note to readers: Will this stay in the RFC?

- Introduction: What is the nature of the experiment? Is there an
expectation to promote it to standards track in the future? Even if the
answer is "We need to get implementation/deployment experience", it's
helpful to say "out loud".

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:33:36 +1100

> mentioned in the abstract, or at least early in the document.

I believe that this was addressed in
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/ca56fd8365d

> - Note to readers: Will this stay in the RFC?

I've removed this from the working copy.  There was no expectation of
it remaining:

https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/2bc987fe8677

> helpful to say "out loud".

There are two aspects to the experiment: "does it even work" has been
a concern raised (that is, across a range of deployments), and "will
anyone bother" is the obvious other.

Maybe add to the introduction:

"This experiment aims to gain deployment experience with this mechanism."

I'm not sure how useful that is given that many (if not all)
experimental RFCs have the same goal.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:08:49 -0500

> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/ca56fd8365d

Yep.

> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/2bc987fe8677

Okay.

> experimental RFCs have the same goal.

I wish that were true, but I think a lot of experimental RFCs are 
experimental because people didn't agree to make them standards track, 
but still wanted them published.

Ben.