W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:55:19 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240866c283b0f79e2e@[10.20.30.108]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

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.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:55:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT