Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

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