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: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:06:51 +0200
Message-ID: <46606E4B.9040201@gmx.de>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>

Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> My recommendation would be for the group to construct a list of errata
> and get consensus on that list.  Each erratum should mention the
> specific sections and text of RFC 2616 that it applies to, what the
> problem is, and what changes are needed to fix the problem.
> ...

Yes, that's what we have been (slowly) doing over the last months. See 

> By the time the list is nearing completion, it should be apparent
> whether it's worth the effort to revise the HTTP specification.  The
> original errata list would still be useful, perhaps as an appendix,
> because many implementors will just want to know what has changed.


> My guess is that if the group sees its task as making a good
> errata-and-fix list for 2616,  it will stay focused and finish in a
> reasonable amount of time.  If at that point it is seen as appropriate
> to actually update 2616, this will be a straightforward task which won't
> take a lot of additional time.  (I do not propose that this task be
> delegated to the RFC editor - the RFC editor function needs to stay
> separate.)

I personally think that this should be a by-product of collecting and 
resolving the errata.

> On the other hand, if the working group sees its task as revising 2616,
> the chance that it will take several years, dig into a dozen ratholes,
> and create even more ambiguity than currently exists, is quite large.

I think this is why an attempt was made to restrict the charter as much 
as possible.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 19:07:06 UTC

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