Re: Last Call: HTTP Extension Framework to Proposed Standard

From: by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (Koen.Holtman@cern.ch)
Date: Thu, Feb 18 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990218153855.00c5bd10@localhost>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:38:55 -0500
To: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
From: Koen Holtman <Koen.Holtman@cern.ch> (by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>)
Subject: Re: Last Call: HTTP Extension Framework to Proposed Standard



On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> At 11:28 2/18/99 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote:
> 
> >The MUST/MAY/SHOULD text in the draft can be fixed, and I am trying to
> >work on this with Henrik, but I have no idea whether we will
> >converge.  I do feel that Henrik is not treating the issue with the
> >care it deserves.
> 
> Koen,
> 
> Before you go on saying what can be fixed and what not can be fixed in the
> current draft I think it would be instructive to point out that you have
> yet to identify a correctness problem in the *current*design* based on what
> is *supported* by the specification.

Sigh.  I have identified some.  See my discussion of sections 5.1 (last
point made) and the last remark about section 9 in my original last call
comments to the IESG.

This is all fixable, I believe some of the edits you proposed afterwards
fixed at least some of the section 9 stuff.  You already fixed the
second-to-last 5.1 point for me by pointing out how to get around it.  I
see a definite possibility of converging on this, don't worry. 

Then there is the 'Sec 5 para after enumerated list' thing about tunneling
for unknown methods.  You should really cross-check this with Jeff if you
don't trust my claim that this is not in http/1.1.  I have been known to
be wrong but I don't think I am wrong about this one.  Alternatively,
point me to the appropriate line in the 1.1 spec.

I am much more worried about us converging on my issues re. sec 5 point 3
and sec 5 point 4, and these have little to do with caching.

> Henrik

Koen.