> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:40 AM
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc: Keith Moore; hardie@equinix.com; ""Yaron Goland (Exchange)"";
> 'Patrik Faltstrom'; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; Scott Lawrence;
> discuss@apps.ietf.org; ""Josh Cohen (Exchange)""; ""Peter Ford
> (Exchange)""
> Subject: Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?
>
> 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.
>
And that is the key issue which is, IMHO, the root of the problem.
Going back to what henrik said, its difficult to be in the position
of being an open forum where vendors can create interoperable standards
as well as being an architectural demigod. (for lack of a better word)
I am not saying I have the answer, but I dont know if its right that
the IETF should say "You must not expand the scope of HTTP". If I want
to represent, lets say, my email store as a web server (with HTTP and DAV)
and I want to use it as my client mail protocol, then I should be able to.
If other vendors wish to do the same, and we want to do it in an
interoperable
way, then the IETF should provide the forum to do so.
If it does not, then maybe the right place for this is in the W3C, which
represents the "web community", a subset of the Internet Community.
<soapbox>
As an outsider, I feel as if the W3c has delegated the protocol work
of HTTP to the IETF to avoid overlapping work. IETF does protocols.
If the IETF is simply taking HTTP and keeping it locked up in a cage
in the basement, then it is not holding up its end of the bargain.
As a result, IMHO, its stifling (my interpretation) of timbl's view of
the web. Every document, email message,buddy list, etc is a resource
with a URL and can be manipulated by web transport protocols, a la HTTP.
</soapbox>