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: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:01:10 +0100
Message-ID: <46DEFCF6.2090101@isode.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> 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.

I've reviewed replies with Mark and here are the results:

RFC 2818 and/or RFC 2817
No (neither) - 1 person
RFC 2818bis only - 1 person
RFC 2817bis only - none
Maybe - 7 people

So consensus seems to be in favor of "Maybe". Based on the poll results 
I would recommend not to change the proposed Charter to say anything 
about RFC 2817 or RFC 2818.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 19:00:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT