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

Re: Changes to the spec

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:20:18 -0800
Message-Id: <9711212120.AA02047@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: yarong@microsoft.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4793

Yaron slightly overstates the case:  RFC 2068 is a Proposed standard,
not a draft or full standard.  His statements are completely true
for a draft standard going to full standard.

The rule (as I understand it) for going from proposed to draft is: no new 
functionality; you can fix problems without having to recycle at proposed 
if changes are backwards compatible with the proposed standard.  If you 
fail this test, then you have to cycle at proposed standard.  We'd like 
to NOT have to cycle at proposed!

So I agree with Yaron's mail with one exception, Accept-TE, or TE, is to 
solve an existing known problem in transfer codings in the proposed standard. 
It is demonstrably broken (even in HTTP/1.0, if memory serves) with garbage 
getting displayed on people's screen. The solution must be (I believe is) 
backwards compatible with RFC 2068.

The first thing I did when becoming editor was to sit down with Scott
Bradner (Mr. IETF process himself), to understand what the rules of the
game were.  I recommend others likewise understand IETF process if they
ever find themselves as editor.
 				- Jim
Received on Friday, 21 November 1997 13:22:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC