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

Re: (revised) HTTP working group status

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:57:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199608200957.LAA07465@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter:
>
>> - when creating 1.1, we used the following rule a number of times:
>
>>  Any proposed HTTP/1.1 features not in HTTP/1.0 for which there is no
>>  consensus will revert to HTTP/1.0 status in 1.1 and be considered for
>>  inclusion in HTTP/1.2.
>
>We have done so. Starting a month before the last IETF, we've called
>for people to consider those issues remaining and decide which ones we
>should actually include as future work.

OK.  If you feel that these issues got adequate consideration, that is
good enough for me.  I agree that we should not add any additional
issues for this WG.

[....]
> This working group will deal with all remaining important
>issues in HTTP 1.x and then close. We're currently scheduled to do so
>by December. We may call the resulting protocol HTTP 1.2, if we need
>to increment the version number. (It's not clear to me at this point
>that it will be necessary to increment the version number.)

None of the drafts before us seem to require incrementing the version
number, they are all `extensions on top of 1.1'.  (They had better be
for editorial reasons alone: there is no way we can add N pages to
the 1.1 draft and call the result 1.2.)

[...]
>Personal opinion:
>
>I believe that HTTP 1.x is near the end of its evolutionary life as a
>protocol.

I think we will see lots of extensions, but they will be created
within the feature negotiation and PEP frameworks, not in the IETF
framework, where creating anything takes a lot more time.  I don't
think an IETF WG could add much value to the 1.x framework after we
have feature negotiation and PEP.

Personally, after this WG closes, I'd rather work in a WG chartered to
do 2.x.  This is where I can see some substantial added value which
can only be gotten with an IETF-like activity.

By the way, about closing this WG: If I'd have to choose between

 1) closing in December
 2) closing when transparent negotiation and PEP have
    proposed status 

I'd choose 2).  I of course hope that 1) and 2) will coincide, and
will work to make this happen.  But if they do not coincide, I'd go
for 2).

>Larry

Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 1996 03:00:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:08 EDT