W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Josh Cohen (Exchange) <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:44:52 -0800
Message-ID: <BFF90FB6CF66D111BF4F0000F840DB850E75DBB7@LASSIE>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Faltstrom'" <paf@swip.net>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:50 AM
> To: Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Patrik
> Faltstrom'; Scott Lawrence; moore@cs.utk.edu; discuss@apps.ietf.org;
> Peter Ford (Exchange)
> Subject: Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
> > Maybe all APPS standards should have experimental, or an
> > equivalent, as a necessary first step in getting to standards
> > track proposed.
> I've wondered about this - maybe groups should have to publish
> as Experimental, and implement the protocol, before going to
> Proposed.  It might get people focused on "running code" sooner
> rather than later, and some groups need that.  I'd like to see 
> a few groups try it before recommending it for everyone in APPS.  
I like this response.  It sounds like a good thing to trial.
However, its still tough to take the stigma of experimental,
would be it possible to have the state called "standards-track
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 19:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:06 UTC