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

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:57:53 +1000
Message-Id: <AC54FD4E-2691-484B-AF35-1310599A4DE3@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

On 01/06/2007, at 8:59 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> It is not "if I don't get my way".  Who appointed you to be the
> determinant of group consensus in the first place?  I am not going
> to support an IETF working group that says "nobody is allowed
> to do a better job describing HTTP than what is in our charter."
> If you don't allow people to produce drafts, and allow the working
> group to evaluate those drafts on the basis of whether the contents
> are better or not, then all you are doing is dictating the content
> of the specification based upon some imagined position of authority.

You spoke about forking the HTTP spec if the IETF decided to go in a  
direction that you didn't like. Working outside the process is very  
different to working within it, whether that be in the charter  
discussions or the WG. Don't try to make this about me.

> So, you should decide whether your work item is to replace 2616
> or to produce a list of errata to be published in RFC form.  If it
> is the former, than I know a lot more about this subject than you
> and I know for a fact that just making small changes around the
> edges is not sufficient.

That's a naked appeal to authority, and I'll give it as much credence  
as it deserves.

> We already tried that twice.

I believe the circumstances are different; time changes things.

> 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.
>
>> Also, on what do you base the accusation that this is being driven  
>> by "short-term corporate agendas?"
>
> On the basis that you presuppose every work item as being limited
> to what you want to do, rather than a task that can be accomplished
> if someone does it, and the continual reference to vendors and
> "developers" that never actually show themselves on this list.

Can you substantiate that?

>> In any case, I don't think re-organising parts of the spec is off  
>> the table; indeed, it's already been discussed on a small scale.  
>> Re-writing the entire spec sentence-for-sentence is, in my opinion.
>
> 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.

I'm not ignoring you, Roy. However, you're making the same arguments  
repeatedly. If you make arguments that convince me, or if you can get  
other people to agree with you, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion.  
Neither has happened yet.

>>> If an IETF HTTP WG is to be recreated, then its task items should be
>>> to create what the working group believes to be the best documents
>>> to replace 2616 and 2617.  The charter does not need to constrain  
>>> that.
>>
>> That would be disruptive and unproductive. You may be willing to  
>> re-write HTTP from scratch, but the review requirements are much  
>> higher than required for what we're attempting (with step-by-step  
>> diffs, by the way).
>>
>> Somehow, HTTP has been implemented and become one of the most  
>> widely-deployed application protocols today, despite your claims  
>> that the spec needs to be re-written from scratch. I don't hear  
>> *anyone* else saying that this necessary, or a realistic option.
>
> 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?

Have you been following the same discussion that I have?

Later, you said to Larry:

> I said that I would if it were given a chance to be reviewed.
> I offered as much to Lisa before this effort started, and before
> the revision was public, and again once people started working on it,
> and each of those times I was rebuffed because the people organizing
> this WG don't think a full revision should be in scope.

I'm willing to do a reasonable amount of work to polish the spec, but  
at this point am unwilling to commit to start from scratch, both  
because I don't think it's likely to be successful, or that I'd be  
able to put the time in. My perception is that most people are in the  
same boat. If you're willing to put that kind of effort in, good for  
you, but it would be misleading to say that I'd have the time to see  
it through to the end. If you want to do that, go ahead and find  
other people who are willing to make it work; that's what I've trying  
to do for this effort.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:58:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT