- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:57:08 -0700
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > Adam Barth wrote: >> Right, this document is useful to folks who would like to generate >> this header. It's a generative profile. As such, its a profile for >> servers. I'm just asking that the document be upfront about that. > > Is Last Call for this draft the appropriate venue to agitate for change > to the way RFCs are generally written? I'm not agitating for a change to how RFCs are generally written. I'm saying that this document defines a profile of an existing protocol element. The profile is useful to servers. The profile is not useful for user agents. The document should be clear about it's scope. > What you're suggesting sounds like wholesale change to HTTP, That's not what I'm suggesting. HTTP is not a profile of another protocol. Adam
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 23:03:21 UTC