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

Re: Straw-man charter

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:59:21 +0100
Message-ID: <45EFEC89.4010803@gmx.de>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Robert Sayre schrieb:
> It seems obvious that these two clauses are incompatible. We've
> discussed this on the list before. I have a draft that states:
> 
>    It is possible that HTTP will be revised in the future. HTTP 1.1 
> [RFC2616]
>    and Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers [RFC2145] define
>    conformance requirements in relation to version numbers. In HTTP 1.1,
>    all authentication mechanisms are OPTIONAL, and no single transport
>    substrate is specified. Any HTTP revision that adds a mandatory security
>    mechanism or transport substrate MUST increment the HTTP version
>    number appropriately.
> 
> Does that paragraph contain incorrect information? If not, the charter
> is inappropriate, because it disregards the IETF consensus recorded in
> several documents.

I think that analysis is correct. The charter should state that the 
issue needs to be resolved, but should avoid saying anything about the 
outcome.

> Thoughts?

As far as I can tell, we have reached a deadlock here, so I'd be 
surprised if there was progress any time soon. That being said, I'd 
*love* to see an official IESG statement about how they think existing 
specifications are supposed to be revised and progressed while 
introducing new mandatory requirements.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT