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
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1422
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

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).


Received on Tuesday, 20 August 1996 03:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC