W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Charter revision

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4C761730.1030802@gmx.de>
To: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25.08.2010 20:42, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 8/24/2010 9:21 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> After some discussion with the ADs and Editors, I'm looking at asking the IESG for a *small* charter revision, to:
>
> To promulgate an STD, which it really appears the 2616bis is ready to become,
> is it necessary to instigate this in the charter?  If so, is this a good time
> to submit such a change?

To get to Full Standard, we either need to change our references to MIME 
to be informative (they may be, after all), or argue that the downrefs 
are ok.

That being said, the amount of *editorial* changes we made is so huge 
that it would be tricky to also advance on the standards track. My 
proposal would be to stay at Draft, and to consider advancing in 
something like ~2 years, in case that at that point we still have three 
levels.

Re 2617: RFC 2617 is a Draft standard (as 2616), so I don't see how this 
would be a problem. After all, we are just rearranging content. Also, I 
would argue that the separation in 2616/2617 simply was a bug (status 
codes and headers in 2616, framework in 2617) that needs to be fixed anyhow.

For CONNECT, things look a *bit* differently, agreed.

Finally: why do you think this is not a good time?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 07:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:24 GMT