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

Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4533D492.4070708@gmx.de>
To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: ietf@ietf.org, atom-protocol@imc.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Robert,

thanks for following up even though the outcome was as expected.

Robert Sayre schrieb:
> 
> Atompub,
> 
> Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current 
> draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard.

Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consider to have 
the protocol published somewhere else (remember there was a big 
discussion about W3C vs IETF before this working group was formed?).

> HTTP-WG,
> 
> Which mechanism will become required to implement for all HTTP/1.1 
> implementations? You can't cycle at DS without picking one.

One potential outcome may be that there'll be no revision of the spec.

> IESG,
> 
> "It means what we want it to mean". Below, there are some brief 
> responses to the irrelevant citations that were included.
> 
> I guess I'll head over to Apache and write some client support for their 
> new HTTP security standards.

Sounds good. Any pointers to what's going on there? A good security 
mechanism implemented both in Apache httpd and Mozilla clearly would be 
A Good Thing.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:57:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT