W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

working group process: moderation of HTTP-WG mailing list

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:20:26 PST
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jan24.152040pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Folks, I will make a general plea for people to stick to process on
the mailing list. 

If there's an issue that's decided already, can we please not revisit
it infinitely. As far as I am concerned, the 'port added to host'
issue is closed, was decided a long time ago. If someone can make a
convincing argument for reopening it, please try it out on me first.

As far as random suggestions to switch gears in mid-stream and produce
a new draft of HTTP without content negotiation or caching, absolutely

The IETF process is an open process, and the mailing list admits
anyone who wants to join. The mailing list is not moderated, and there
are no mechanical restrictions on who can post what when.

On the other hand, it does not mean that we should chatter on
aimlessly. Following the suggestions in RFC 1603 (please read), I
intend to moderate HTTP-WG. But I certainly need your help. Messages
that are 'out of order' do not need to be responded to. Please do not.

The design teams working on various sub-areas should be complete with
whatever they are going to do by the end of January. I expect that
starting in February, based on their reports, we will review the
protocol elements in draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-01.txt section by
section, to make sure that we understand and agree on how the
decisions of the sub teams will affect the draft specification.

We've accepted an agressive schedule; it will be impossible to meet if
people keep on getting distracted by non-issues.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 15:03:21 EST
To: pjc@trusted.com
In-reply-to: Peter J Churchyard's message of Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:08:10 -0800 <9601242108.AA20973@hilo.trusted.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal on removing Content Negotiation from http 1.1
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

> If you think it would be appropriate then I am happy to  propose a new
> non http protocol that has the minimallist features that interworks with
> the proposed 1.0 and 1.1 standards.

No, I do not think it is appropriate at this time.

> Having reviewed work in progress, I came to the above conclusions. 

Perhaps the minutes of the last meeting and the fact that there are
subgroups working on caching and content negotiation escaped you,

> The WEB by its very nature has its own 'sub groups'. If you speak only
> french or german I am sure that you can find a weblet that you can use.

I think you must have misunderstood the phrase 'subgroup'. I did not
mean it in the general sense of "a group of people chatting" but
rather individual design teams, as outlined in section 5.4 of RFC 1603
("IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures"). If you are
unfamiliar with that document, please read it.

You may think this is an informal message as one colleague to another,
but it is not. I am attempting to moderate the WG email list, as is
outlined in section 5.1 of RFC 1603.

In that capacity, I am telling you that we have already established a
baseline document (draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-01.txt) and a procedure
for reviewing that document, and your proposals are not inline with
those procedures, and I am asking you to desist at this time.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 1996 19:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC