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

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:58:41 +1000
Message-Id: <C1E6F3CB-49C6-4C0F-955A-3D69D26987C6@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>

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

> The HTTP auth model needs a lot of work.


> 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  

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)?


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:58:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC