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

Re: New feature negotiation syntax

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:16:16 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706061216.OAA07699@wsooti07.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, dmk@bell-labs.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3420
Larry Masinter:
>>A good requirements document states the problem and a set of tests that
>>would verify that the problem has been solved.  I think Ted Hardie made
>>a start on those two items, whereas I don't think Koen's statement does
>Yes. The universal reaction I get when I ask people why they
>think we're not making progress on TCN is that there isn't
>agreement on the requirements.

You have obviously been talking to different people than I have.  Care
to name some of them?  Most people I have been talking to judge TCN by
its ability to solve some known problems.  Requirements documents
don't come into it.

Re-reading this thread, I see that most of us think that some sort of
applicability statement would be nice, but I don't see a big call for
a full-blown requirements document.

>Since Ted has made a good start, I'm hoping he'll volunteer to
>shepherd the requirements document through the process. Otherwise,
>we'll need someone else to try to manage the document through
>the consensus process.

I might volunteer for such an activity once I understand what people
actually want the requirements document to do.  Right now, I don't
even understand what you want it to do.


Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 05:18:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC