Message-Id: <220.127.116.11.19990218153855.00c5bd10@localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:38:55 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Koen Holtman <Koen.Holtman@cern.ch> (by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <email@example.com>) 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.