> On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Sean Turner <turners@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:16, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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