W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: DRAFT Minutes, HTTP-WG

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:43:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.951208113004.3558B-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>

Mostly reflects what I recall after allowing for possible naps when I may
have missed a whole discussion fragment I don't recognize ;-:). See one
comment below.

On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Larry Masinter wrote:

> HTTP/1.0 was proposed as Best Current Practice but rejected by the
> IESG because didn't describe people's view of what was 'best', and
> thus it was an inappropriate status.
> * After some back and forth about a variety of options, the desire for
>   a stable core, and so on, the discussion led to the proposal that
>   HTTP/1.0 be re-written as an Informational RFC describing current
>   practice.
>   However, 'current practice' does not mean that we should document
>   all 50 versions of content negotiation as practices, merely use the
>   core of the 1.0 document as it stands for the parts that are
>   specified, and note that other features are not implemented
>   consistently. 
> ================================================================
> After these discussions, the chairs presented the results of their
> dinner planning session:
> - The HTTP/1.0 draft will be revised to become an 'informational RFC'
>   which describes common current practice. Paul Hoffman (maintainer of
>   the list of HTTP servers and their features) will help.

Somehow I was under the impression that changes to the current 1.0 document
were to be largely cosmetic to change the boiler plate to align with the
informational status. What I see recorded here sounds like a major rewrite
and that seems like an awful lot of effort for all of us. Find some
verbage to describe it as commonly available interoperable current practice
and perhaps allow some focused comment from current server/UA authors who
feel they have a commonly used feature which has been missed. Then lets
move on to 1.1 quickly!

My sense is that 1.0 should be a document from which a workable server could
be implemented and exoect to interoperate with user agents which existed
circa Mar 1995 (or pick another date). Secondly, it will describe current
usage for problem determination.  

Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 8 December 1995 11:48:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC