W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: HTTP Bar BoF Summary

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:56:14 -0700
Message-Id: <2921FADA-A59E-4DA0-8DBA-6C328F19709F@mnot.net>
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

+ John Klensin


On 2006/07/13, at 10:48 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> s/Melkinov/Melnikov/
>
> Apologies to Alexei. Did I mangle anyone else's name, or miss anyone?
>
>
> On 2006/07/13, at 1:18 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>>
>> We talked about potential work on 2616.
>>
>> Everyone seemed to agree that cleaning up the document (e.g.,  
>> folding in errata, documenting the extensibility model) is a clear  
>> win. There was also considerable interest in going a bit further;  
>> e.g., exploring implementation divergence, potentially deprecating  
>> features that have proven to be interoperability problem, and  
>> generating operational documentation. When asked, no one thought  
>> that this level of activity was a bad idea, several stated keen  
>> interest, and some indicated that they would be willing to  
>> contribute actively.
>>
>> No one indicated interest in working on "HTTP/1.2," but rather  
>> just more clearly documenting 1.1. There was also interest in  
>> defining extensions to HTTP, but those who spoke supported  
>> focusing on the 2616 cleanup first.
>>
>> 2617 was also discussed, in particular Digest authentication;  
>> while there are some errata that could be incorporated in a  
>> backwards-compatible fashion, several people raised issues that  
>> they thought could only be addressed by a backwards-incompatible  
>> revision to Digest (i.e., a new Digest-like HTTP authentication  
>> scheme within the HTTP authentication framework). Again, there was  
>> broad support for such work, and no detractors spoke up. There was  
>> some discussion of whether this would be relevant to the  
>> activities in the WAE BoF, but those who spoke felt that this  
>> effort had a different scope, and would be most appropriate in an  
>> HTTP-focused WG.
>>
>> It was agreed that the next steps to explore these items is to:
>>   * Engage implementers, ideally holding an interop (either  
>> virtual or real) to discover and explore various problem areas
>>   * Write a problem statement exploring the issues to be addressed  
>> more deeply
>>   * Prepare a straw-man charter for an umbrella HTTP WG
>>   * Request a BoF in San Diego
>>
>> We then recessed to drink beer and eat French fries covered in  
>> gravy and cheese.
>>
>> Attendees:
>> - Phillip Hallam-Baker
>> - Scott Lawrence
>> - Lisa Dusseault
>> - Mark Baker
>> - Dave Raggett
>> - Carsten Bormann
>> - Cyrus Daboo
>> - Thomas Roessler
>> - Yngve Pettersen
>> - Alexei Melkinov
>> - Mark Nottingham
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2006 18:56:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:46 GMT