- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:26:30 +0200
- To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
- CC: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Splitting my previous question into two: > > a) Will this WG consider clarifications and revisions to main-line > HTTP-related RFCs, most notably the security ones? > > b) Will this WG consider new extensions to HTTP outside the main documents? My preferred answer to both is "no", because I really doubt that we'll be able to finish in a reasonable amount of time. > If the answer to (a) is "no", then we need a second WG, which will > likely have a lot of membership overlap. To me, that seems non-optimal. I do agree that RFC2617 needs a revision as well, I'm just not sure that we currently have the right people to do it. If a BOF would show that there are people willing to work on this (and implementors willing to update their products), then fine... > I'm OK either way with (b), but hope that if the answer is "yes" that > they aren't even considered until all the other work is done first. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 18:26:49 UTC