Re: Straw-man charter

I'd like to discuss this here and in the Sunday meeting, with the aim  
of taking a *productive* set of questions/statements to the APPS area  
open meeting the following Monday.


On 08/03/2007, at 2:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Robert Sayre schrieb:
>> It seems obvious that these two clauses are incompatible. We've
>> discussed this on the list before. I have a draft that states:
>>    It is possible that HTTP will be revised in the future. HTTP  
>> 1.1 [RFC2616]
>>    and Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers [RFC2145]  
>> define
>>    conformance requirements in relation to version numbers. In  
>> HTTP 1.1,
>>    all authentication mechanisms are OPTIONAL, and no single  
>> transport
>>    substrate is specified. Any HTTP revision that adds a mandatory  
>> security
>>    mechanism or transport substrate MUST increment the HTTP version
>>    number appropriately.
>> Does that paragraph contain incorrect information? If not, the  
>> charter
>> is inappropriate, because it disregards the IETF consensus  
>> recorded in
>> several documents.
>
> I think that analysis is correct. The charter should state that the  
> issue needs to be resolved, but should avoid saying anything about  
> the outcome.
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> As far as I can tell, we have reached a deadlock here, so I'd be  
> surprised if there was progress any time soon. That being said, I'd  
> *love* to see an official IESG statement about how they think  
> existing specifications are supposed to be revised and progressed  
> while introducing new mandatory requirements.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/