Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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?

I would have hoped that we can concentrate on revising RFC2616, and do 
just that. However, we got signals from IESG members that a revision of 
RFC2616 would not be accepted unless it improves the security story. 
IMHO a very bad idea.

Fixing it needs, but that needs to be done somewhere else.

>> 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.

:-) I'd prefer the charter to be as small & precise as possible.

Best regards, Julian