W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:07:52 +1100
Cc: "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9E6E1814-6BE1-43A6-892B-CCC8D3249777@mnot.net>
To: "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>


On 07/02/2009, at 9:05 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
>
> Is HTTPbis actually ever going to get published? Is there a new  
> schedule? It
> looks like it is going to be at least a year late and there is very  
> little
> progress being made.

We have been going in spurts. I expressed concern about the schedule  
last year, but the feedback from both the ADs and people in the room  
(IIRC this was in Dublin) was that we're still making good progress,  
and the work justifies the wait.

Personally, I'm OK with this answer, as long as we are still moving  
forward; RFC2616 has served us for quite some time, and it can hold on  
a bit longer.

The editors have made some progress recently on proposals for a  
variety of issues, but we're waiting for the IPR contributions  
situation to be resolved (hopefully in the next week or so) before  
publsihing.


> Perhaps the issue list should be cut down to the bare
> minimum needed to resolve known interoperable issues. If that is  
> done then I
> think issues like i109 are should be first on the chopping block,  
> since its
> resolution will not improve interoperability.

I'd be surprised if we resolved every issue on the list, but I think  
we shouldn't throw them away either.

I will be concerned if we lose editorial resources, or don't have good  
feedback and review. So far it doesn't look like that's the situation.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 23:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT