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

RE: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:13:15 -0700
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Eliot Lear'" <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Paul Hoffman'" <phoffman@imc.org>, "'Apps Discuss'" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c7a318$7bc243e0$7346cba0$@org>

I'm sympathetic to the desire to keep the charter narrow, but I wonder
if it is feasible to update 2616 without updating 2617. I thought
that it was more of a convenience and that the split between
the two was (to some degree) artificial.

If you really want to limit scope, what do you think about
issuing an informational RFC on 'what changes are needed to 2617'
(starting with the Sayre draft, I'd think)? Then 2616bis
could be published and the group rechartered to do the
2617 update (and, if needed, yet another turn of the crank
on 2616bisbis.)

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 00:14:20 UTC

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