I think that this proposal is is essentially proposing that JMS defines some kind of HTTP binding (protocol, really) to a JMS provider. I can well imagine that this is a common requirement: I know at least two JMS providers that provide a HTTP protocol and I'm sure there are others.
I think there are a number of issues here:
1. Whether a standard HTTP protocol to JMS is required
2. If so, whether it belongs in JMS or in some other specification
Defining a standard HTTP protocol sounds, on the face of it, a good idea. It would be necessary to decide what JMS features could be made available using HTTP - some, like message order or transactions, would probably rely on the concept of there being some kind of client state maintained between requests.
Then there's the question of whether this is should be defined as part of JMS, as a separate JCP specification, or under the auspices of some other body.
As a general rule the JCP is "for developing standard technical specifications for Java technology", but defining a HTTP protocol for JMS is certainly not out of the question. Some would probably recommend that it be defined at OASIS, or even IETF. But if it needs to align strongly with the Java API then that might be enough justification to develop it as part of JMS.
We would need to consider what the compatibility requirements would be for the HTTP protocol? Would all JMS products be required to include a REST server that supported the protocol?
We would also need to consider where the HTTP protocol would sit the JMS architecture. Would the JMS server support the HTTP protocol or would we be defining a separate server that accepted HTTP requests and translated them to the native network protocol for the JMS server, perhaps by just translating them into JMS API calls?
My feeling is that we would never want to make it mandatory for a JMS provider to directly support the HTTP protocol, and that it should be possible to implement it as a separate component interfacing with the JMS provider using the standard JMS API (if it requires proprietary API then it isn't really a JMS binding). This suggests to me that this belongs in a separate JSR.
I'm also mindful that this would be a significant piece of work and there's not going to be time to deliver in the JMS 2.0 timescales in any case.
So my proposal is that we take the decision to not attempt to define a HTTP protocol for JMS 2.0. We can leave the issue open, but it is likely that a HTTP protocol would need to be delivered as a separate JSR.
Irrespective of this, there may be scope to enhance the existing JMS (Java) API to make it easier to deliver a HTTP binding. I think we already have one in JMS_SPEC-5, and there may be others).