- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:22:51 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'd like to discuss this here and in the Sunday meeting, with the aim of taking a *productive* set of questions/statements to the APPS area open meeting the following Monday. On 08/03/2007, at 2:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 17:24:12 UTC