W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

HTTP/1.1 Issues list

From: <jg@zorch.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:02:56 -0500
Message-Id: <9702191602.AA30871@zorch.w3.org>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: fielding@ics.uci.edu
I've put together an issues list on the HTTP/1.1 proposed standard.
It is not yet complete, but at least represents one pass (as of last
Friday) through my mail folder where I've attempted to file messages
that I believe may (but may not) indicate some issue in the Proposed
Standard that we (the working group) need to discuss or resolve
for the document to proceed to Draft standard.

You can find it at:

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/

I've not yet really gone through the mail archive to see what I've
missed, or incorporated one or two issues I have from Larry on his list,
or anything since late last week (e.g. the compression discussion of
the last few days). If there are things missing at this point,
you can send me mail, or wait until next week when I'll put up a
more exhaustive list (and Larry has a chance to see what is missing
from my list in his mail folder).  If you do send me mail, a hyperlink to the
thread of discussion in the mail archive would make my job much
easier.  Items NOT discussed in the working group mailing list should
be raised as soon as possible.

Larry and I are discussing possible processes for how to proceed on
resolving open issues.  I expect we'll make a proposal by Monday of
a process to take us to draft standard.  Also note that we have not
yet made any decisions on how we will proceed from a IETF procedural
standpoint on any given issue; the solutions may be different in different
cases.  For those of you who have not become familiar with IETF process,
there are a number of ways things can proceed, depending upon what the
working group and area directors believe the severity of any issue is.

Roy, could you update the working group page at 
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/
to point to the new issues list above, and revise the link to the old
issues list to make it clear it was the issues list for the proposed standard,
and is now obsolete?  I'll update the old Issues list page to provide
a pointer there to the new one, but it would be best to make it
clear on the working group page...

			- Jim Gettys
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 08:07:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:29 EDT