W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:57:37 -0800
Message-ID: <001301bf3c57$dbb867a0$58b81eac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
The most important thing is to get an RFC number attached to it because
people think that the current draft has expired.

It is also important to note that there are no public outstanding
technical issues with the current spec nor have there to my knowledge been
since March where it was sent to last call for proposed. I hope that this
will be made clear in the status note of the document.

The term "community support" is inherently hard to define - especially as
there was no working group chartered. I agree with Scott that there may be
dependency problems with standard track specs using it but as I understand
the process, it is possible to change the status from experimental to
proposed without chartering a wg. Keith, can you please confirm this?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>; <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday 01 December, 1999 14:35
Subject: Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?


> > Will we get a note from the IESG explaining why Experimental and what
> > would be needed to move it to standards track?
>
> The document did not have enough community support for standards-track.
>
> Keith
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 1999 18:58:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:26 GMT