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

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:15:18 +0200
Message-ID: <465E8416.2020302@gmx.de>
To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
CC: 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>

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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.

Good point. I think they can be done separately, that is, there can be a 
RFC2616bis without a RFC2617bis. RFC2616bis would just continue to refer 
to RFC2617, which at some point of time would be obsoleted by its revision.

Am I missing something?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 08:15:43 UTC

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