Subject: [core] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-15: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:56:35 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-15: Discuss

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-core-http-mapping/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a generally well written document, but it seems to be defining
protocol, or at least required practices for interoperability. Why is it
informational?  If it really does make sense for it to be informational,
I think a paragraph explaining why would be helpful.

The 2nd paragraph in section 1 seems to attempt that, but the explanation
leads me again to think that informational is not the right status.
"Guidelines that...should adhere to" to increase interoperability doesn't
sound informational.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:54:09 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-http-mapping/

Oops, somehow I managed to edit out the following:

"Would experimental be more appropriate?"

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:59:47 +0100

Hi Ben,

> "Would experimental be more appropriate?"

I think there are several implementations that follow recommendations in
the document, so "Experimental" doesn't seem appropriate here.

I also wanted for the document to be Proposed Standard, but I think the
WG doesn't feel comfortable to mandate behavior in the document on all
implementations. I would like to hear more from the WG on this.

Best Regards,
Alexey