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: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:12:35 +1000 (EST)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <19991006181235.67007C4F0@mail.mnot.net>
Quoting "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>:
> I have no objection to discussions on how to best implement HTTP,
> or further rationale to back up the HTTP requirements.  What I object
> to is implementation advice for general-purpose server technology
> that is made-over to look like protocol requirements.  The W3C does
> that sort of thing, but the IETF does not (at least not without clearly
> distinguishing between informational content and protocol requirements).


I didn't intend to 'make over' the advice to look like protocol requirements, but I freely admit that they can be interpreted that way; I 
chose to do it that way because it seemed the most natural and clear way to do so. My logic was that the requirements set forth 
in it were only in the scope of the document, so that a product could be referred to as compliant with it, over and above protocol 
compliance. This will hopefully be more clear in a future draft of the document (if there is indeed any point in further revision).

I apologize if it's not politic to submit this to the IETF, but it seemed the best place to start (as I don't have the cash to join the 
W3C). I am (or at least I was during the writing of this draft) very much an outsider. If someone has a suggestion about where 
this document would best reside (whether that place is in the http-wg or not, as there does seem to be some dissention), I'll be 
more than happy to talk about it (as I've stated before).

Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 1999 19:25:40 UTC

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