- From: <lars.svensson@web.de>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:30:18 +0200
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2021 10:30:33 UTC