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

Re: 19.9 requirements summary

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 11:35:26 MDT
Message-Id: <9708211835.AA24887@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com
Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
	has any drafting been done of a fuller replacement for 19.9 than
	what's in id 8?

I circulated a draft of about half of the requirements for section 13
(caching) about 2 or 3 months ago, as a "test of concept".  It got
reasonably positive response.

However, we decided not to include a full listing in draft -08,
because
	(1) we felt that getting the spec right was more important
	than writing the requirements summary, and we could not
	finish both before the July 30 cutoff date.

	(2) The spec was changing enough (relative to RFC2068)
	that any summary based on RFC2068 would be inaccurate.
	We did not have a procudure in place to ensure that we
	would be able to know what exactly would have to be updated.

Of course, those two excuses are (mostly) moot now.  The real
problem is to find a sufficient number of people who have time
time to draft portions of the requirements summary.  I initially
went through RFC2068 and divided the effort up among various
members of the editorial group, but (as far as I know) none of
us (including me) have actually done anything.  We'd certainly
be interested in volunteers, although I think it will be hard
to absorb too many different authorial "voices" in this process.

I think I was also nominated to work on the details of the format.
One possibility is to put the master copy into a spreadsheet, which
gives us some freedom to reformat things (especially because Jim
Gettys maintains the master copy of the HTTP/1.1 spec in Word).

-Jeff
Received on Thursday, 21 August 1997 11:44:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:51 EDT