Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

On 31/05/2007, at 1:30 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:

> The HTTP auth model needs a lot of work.

Agreed.

> Creating an update without addressing it seems to me pointless.

Not to me. The scope of the two activities is vastly different; I've  
only seen support for doing minor changes and clarifications to 2616,  
while 2617 needs wholesale revision or replacement in many eyes.

To be fair, there are some small clarification/editorial-type issues  
(e.g., encoding of credentials) in 2617 that could be addressed by  
this style of charter. The concern that I have is that a) it would be  
difficult to keep the lid on and limit it to just those changes, and  
b) doing so would do a lot of good in the world, considering Kieth's  
point.

Paul just noted that if the efforts are temporally linked, doing them  
separately is a waste of resources. I'm wondering if they are; e.g.,  
could a WG do 2616bis, and then be re-chartered to do 2617bis (with a  
similar scope)?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/