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

Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:37:46 -0400
Message-ID: <46D4798A.5070501@cs.utk.edu>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>

I'm thinking that these are security RFCs and perhaps not proper scope
for an apps group.  however I don't know why an httpbis group shouldn't
make recommendations for things to change in these RFCs if it can
identify problems with them. 

>> Hi folks,
>> Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I
>> would like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC
>> 2817 (Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1) and RFC 2818 (HTTP Over TLS)
>> should be in scope for the proposed WG.
>> Question: Should RFC 2817 and/or RFC 2818 revision be in scope for
>> the WG?
>> Please chose one of the following answers:
>> 1). No
>> 2). Yes, only add RFC 2818bis to the charter
>> 3). Yes, only add RFC 2817bis to the charter
>> 4). Yes, add both RFC 2817bis and RFC 2818bis to the charter
>> 5). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the
>> currently proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in
>> another WG")
>> 6). I have another opinion, which is ....
>> Please send answers to the mailing list, or directly to me *and* Mark
>> Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>.
>> And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of
>> answers.
> Folks, I've seen very little answers to my question. I would like to
> encourage people to be more active on this.
> I would also like to set a deadline for this question: please send
> your response before September 3rd.
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 19:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC