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

Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 17:39:34 -0500
Message-Id: <199912072239.RAA25252@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, hardie@equinix.com, "\"\"Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)\"\"" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Fältström'" <paf@swip.net>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "\"\"Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)\"\"" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>, "\"\"Peter Ford \(Exchange\)\"\"" <peterf@exchange.microsoft.com>
> > I'm starting to think that even architectural groups need
> > to be working toward a tangible goal (say, a document of some
> > sort) in order to get people focused on any particular problem.
> 
>     No deliverables = no accountability = nothing happens.
> 
> It has to be chartered as a group with deliverables. Reviews of
> documents are deliverables and so one possibility is to charter a group
> to review drafts from related working groups and individuals; write up
> concerns and comments and ensure that coordination happens and feedback
> provided to the IESG.

we've occasionally chartered 'review groups' in the past, for instance
we did (a very short-lived) one a few years ago for email extensions.  
at that time, iirc, we had a lot of requests for email extensions appear
in a short time.  and those extensions were relatively small and 
self-contained and easy to think about.  

http architectural issues seem thornier and more difficult to sort out.  
chartering a group to consider http extension mechanisms seems wrong -
seems like the first question is whether http should be extended 
(in scope) at all.
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:50:29 GMT

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