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

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:01:10 +0200
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1180656070.5423.120.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
tor 2007-05-31 klockan 15:59 -0700 skrev Roy T. Fielding:

> If I make the real changes that are needed in draft form and submit
> them to the WG, then I will expect them to be evaluated without bias
> or the WG to be closed.  If the answer is "that's too much
> for me to review, so you aren't allowed to do that in the IETF"
> then I won't.  I will do it elsewhere and the IETF specification
> will become irrelevant.

My requirement is that it's possible to review the changes relative to
2616 without decompiling both documents. This not for the review of the
new document as such, but to review the potential interoperability
issues with previous revisions.

I am fine with quite substantial reordering and restructuring where
motivated, and also some new definitions to better separate the
different aspects & levels of the protocol and partial rewrite to make
use of these. But not a complete rewrite.

> In your opinion.  You chose to ignore mine, in spite of the fact that
> I have a bit of history on the subject, and that is why I have to make
> comments on these proposals.

The scope for this effort has been discussed for quite some time now.
What Mark put down in the proposed WG charter is mainly a summary of
what has been discussed and agreed on this mailinglist for the last year
or so.

It's possible these perhaps isn't the correct goals for the WG, but it's
a distillation what has been discussed and generally agreed on by
consensus on this mailinglist.

> I don't hear anyone else saying that 2616 needs to be revised before
> 2617, yet you continue to take that as an assumption.  2616 doesn't
> *need* to be revised at all.  2617 desperately does need to in order
> to meet the IESG requirements.  Why is that unclear?

2616 at minimum needs editorial updates and clarifications. A fair bit
more is desirable to get a clearer specification and maybe even a better
protocol, but imho not strictly required to finalize HTTP/1.1 as a
STANDARD. I think it's undesirable to move the current document to
STANDARD without cleanup.

2617 at minimum needs quite significant work indeed, and the result will
also take considerably more time to get deployed and tested. The kinds
of problems that need to be addressed is also a bit different from 2616.


Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:01:24 UTC

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