- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:46:53 -0800
- To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'Patrik Fältström'" <paf@swip.net>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>, <moore@cs.utk.edu>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>, "Peter Ford \(Exchange\)" <peterf@exchange.microsoft.com>
> [I feel compelled to point out at the outset that none of the discussoin > below has anything to do with the HTTP Extensions Framework document - > (a) this was an indivdual submission, not an HTTP working group document, > and (b) the document received mixed reviews both within the HTTP WG > and during Last Call, which is why it was not approved as Proposed.] Actually I think this has a lot to do with it. The HTTP Extension Framework was originally a work item of the HTTP WG but was because of the desire to close HTTP WG put off to another WG - the HTTP extension working group along with two other items on "Policy for how to extend HTTP" and the OPTIONS draft. However, this group was never chartered due to what I consider political problems. There didn't seem to be any other way than to make this draft an individual submission - something that I don't recommend anybody to try as there is no protection what so ever from arbitrary comments that normally get filtered out by "rough concensus" in a wg. If you refer to the comments that were sent in during last call then these were a) after I had made an informal last call on the HTTP WG mailing list and b) after the draft had been pending for a while without comments. Regardless, the comments were resolved during the last call which I believe is the whole purpose of this mechanism, especially in the case of individual submissions. What I am opposed to is for work items to be needlessly delayed by process because of architectural differences in where we as a comunity want to go. I am not claiming that the HTTP extension spec is flawless but I am calling for open and timely discussion. If the openness of the IETF has to be for real then such differences are supposed to be dealt with on a public mailing list, not by dropping specs into process holes. IESG can not at the same time be the driving force of Internet Standards and an architectural guardian using the very same process. One solution to this is to appoint a app area directorate which can object to proposals and provide timely technical/philosophical feedback rather than having IESG use process to slow work down. Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 14:03:34 UTC