W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1999

Re: WG meeting in Washington?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:11:30 +1000 (EST)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>, List <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <19991002151130.A34EDC4F0@mail.mnot.net>

> While there is value in documenting some implementation concerns for HTTP,
> your draft is not appropriate for the IETF standards track.  The reason is
> because IETF standards specify the protocol, not the means by which servers
> are implemented to conform to that protocol.  Phrasing a bunch of
> implementation concerns as if they were protocol requirements is not
> appropriate, however well intentioned and useful the document may be.

OK. I was thinking that it may have qualified as an Applicability Statement, as in section 3.2 of RFC 2026. Looking back, I see how that's probably taking 
too much license with what's there, at least for http-wg.

In any case, I'm happy if people just start thinking and discussing this stuff, irregardless of the status of the doc. If there is another more appropriate 
place that this sort of thing could live, please tell me.


Mark Nottingham
Received on Saturday, 2 October 1999 16:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:34 UTC