Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

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