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

BoF Summary

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:47:27 -0700
Message-Id: <B7E9B041-1CF1-459D-AEB6-93BD5629BC2F@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

We'll have minutes posted shortly, but in the meantime (feel free to  
disagree with my estimates of the outcomes):

After presentations, discussion focused on a few points, including:
  - whether this work should happen; i.e. whether it was worth time  
discussing a charter (room agreed it's a good thing)
  - whether new authentication work should occur in this group (room  
agreed that it should be separate)
  - whether completing work on 2616 should be blocked upon certain  
aspects of authentication work are done (room agreed that it should  
not be, beyond normal coordination / liaison)
  - whether revising 2617 should be included in the scope of work (no  
strong indication either way)
  - whether incorporating 2817/2818 should be included in the scope  
of work (positions on both sides, no conclusion)
  - whether work on cookies (e.g., updating to match deployed  
implementations, security concerns) should be included in the scope  
of work (no conclusion)
  - whether the group should attempt to catalogue the security  
properties of HTTP (room went back and forth, ended up on the side of  
doing it)
  - what the status of a security properties document should be  
(strong feeling for Informational, not BCP)
  - whether there was support for doing a substantial rewrite/reorg  
of 2616 (people indicated they were willing to look at proposals)

There were also a few specific wording suggestions for the proposed  
charter; I'll circulate a revised copy shortly.


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 06:47:35 UTC

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