Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

At 11:20 PM +0200 5/30/07, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Eliot Lear wrote:
>>Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>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 HTTP auth model needs a lot of work.  Creating an update 
>>without addressing it seems to me pointless.
>
>Well, RFC2616 needs updating, so does RFC2617. Why does this need to 
>be the same activity?

If the effort for the two are temporally linked (they have to be done 
at the same time), and there will be a lot of overlap in the groups 
working on the two (that is, HTTP implementers and HTTP weenies are 
needed for both efforts), having two WGs seems like a waste of 
resources.