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

Hit-metering: to Proposed Standard?

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 11:43:58 PST
Message-Id: <9611191943.AA24370@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Several weeks ago, Paul Leach and I submitted an Internet-Draft
on "Simple Hit-Metering for HTTP":

   ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-mogul-http-hit-metering-00.txt

and announced it to the HTTP-WG mailing list.

Although our previous (and quite different) proposal, at the end of July,
resulted in some discussion, this one has raised no comments on the
mailing list (although we have received a few private comments).

Since we have not seen any criticism of our latest proposal, we would
like to interpret this as lack of criticism rather than lack of
interest, because we already have evidence that several large customers
are eager to deploy implementations of our proposal.

Therefore, we intend to submit this I-D, or a minor revision thereof,
to the IESG as a Proposed Standard as soon as possible.

Note that the criteria for Proposed Standard in RFC2026 says

   A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances.

so we *would* like to encourage further community review.

If there is significant criticism based on technical merit, then we
will reconsider our intention to submit it as a Proposed Standard.
Of course, we are also eager to hear from people who support our
proposal, or who would like to suggest revisions.  There are a
few minor open "Design Questions" still listed in this draft.

-Jeff and Paul

P.S.: We should also note that Larry Masinter has suggested that
this should be submitted for "Experimental" rather than "Proposed
Standard" status.  Our reading of RFC2026, however, convinces
us that "Experimental" would be inappropriate.  Larry may still
disagree.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 1996 12:07:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:16 EDT