Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

> > I'm starting to think that even architectural groups need
> > to be working toward a tangible goal (say, a document of some
> > sort) in order to get people focused on any particular problem.
>     No deliverables = no accountability = nothing happens.
> It has to be chartered as a group with deliverables. Reviews of
> documents are deliverables and so one possibility is to charter a group
> to review drafts from related working groups and individuals; write up
> concerns and comments and ensure that coordination happens and feedback
> provided to the IESG.

we've occasionally chartered 'review groups' in the past, for instance
we did (a very short-lived) one a few years ago for email extensions.  
at that time, iirc, we had a lot of requests for email extensions appear
in a short time.  and those extensions were relatively small and 
self-contained and easy to think about.  

http architectural issues seem thornier and more difficult to sort out.  
chartering a group to consider http extension mechanisms seems wrong -
seems like the first question is whether http should be extended 
(in scope) at all.

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:50:29 UTC