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

Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:08:41 -0700
Message-Id: <27A8CD3B-92C5-4726-8CA1-43B5F01320F4@gbiv.com>
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>

On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>> "Roy" == Roy T Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> writes:
>
>     Roy> On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> Another important aspect of the charter scope constraint is to
>>> make sure that if the scope is expanded to include new headers
>>> or methods, the entire IETF community is notified so people not
>>> currently participating in the effort can join.
>
>     Roy> There is no scope currently.  After the IESG makes its
>     Roy> decision, then the approved charter is sent to the IETF
>     Roy> community and thereby notified of the scope by that charter.
>
> There is a proposed scope.
>
>>> As such, I believe it is appropriate for the IETF community to
>>> place this constraint on the HTTP working group.
>
>     Roy> Your logic escapes me.  I think it is important for the IESG
>     Roy> to realize that the IETF community is not yet even fully
>     Roy> aware that the working group has been proposed,
>
> It is our standard process to inform the ietf community of proposed
> working groups through mail to ietf-announce; that has been done.
> ALso, as is our common practice, we held a BOF on this issue.  The
> scope restrictions at this time were discussed at the BOF.  It is my
> opinion that there was broad support in the BOF for this scope
> restriction.

Sorry, I was under the impression that the reason the IESG
asks for comments on a proposed charter is so that the comments
of the community can be considered.  If you aren't interested in
making changes to the scope, then this whole part of the process
is a waste of time (aside from fixing the obvious typo in the
WG name).  Let's just skip it and do something useful instead.

> You are correct that many people interested in HTTP may not currently
> be part of the IETF community.  However I think that there are enough
> people who are part of the IETF community who desire this scope
> restriction that it has community support.

The IETF community is not the people who show up for IETF meetings
every four months.  It is the Internet hardware and software community
that are impacted by the RFCs that they agree to adopt.

The IESG is fully capable of deciding that my comments are less
significant than the sum of bodies who happened to show up for
a BOF and appeared to have consensus.  I wasn't there and wouldn't
know.  I can only express my opinion and spend my time working on
what interests me.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 00:08:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT