Re: RFC2616 revision, was: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Jim Gettys wrote:

> Still doesn't solve the problem of getting people to *read* and  
> *verify*
> the results, which is the fundamental sticking point, IMHO.  So  
> far, no
> promises from anyone I've heard.

It isn't worth the effort.  The minimum tasks for an update include
re-specifying the grammar using the now-standard IETF BNF notation and
the RFC 3986 rules for URIs, and then split the specification into
readable drafts on message syntax, http/https URIs, caching, and
content negotiation.  I don't see that happening any time soon, since
it makes more sense to let MIME be updated first.

....Roy