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

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:31 -0400
Message-ID: <465E4CD3.30106@cs.utk.edu>
To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> 


>> 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.
I'm thinking that perhaps RFC2617 should be moved to historic.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 04:20:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 October 2011 12:13:58 GMT