Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

At 4:59 PM +0200 5/30/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
>I guess the idea was that the more we restrict the scope of what we 
>want to do, the easier it'll be to gather the right group of people 
>to do it.

Fully agree.

>For instance, RFC2617 needs a revision badly as well (for instance, 
>wrt to I18N of usernames and passwords, and, as far as I can recall, 
>certain problems with the definition of Digest Auth). IMHO; this 
>should occur in a separate working group.

The proposed charter has:
   * Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated
     mechanisms (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS)
     for common applications
So, would obviously-needed changes to the associated mechanisms be in 
scope for the WG, or not?

>Are there any specific extensions you have in mind?

Definitely not. I was asking whether or not we want to clamp down on 
charter creep now or later.