Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

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 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/>.

> 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.

<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.html#changes.from.rfc.2616>

> 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