- From: <hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 22:11:20 -0400
- To: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Hi folks, could people stop getting all bent out of shape over this? Roy did not exactly put his case well, he made it sound like he was asking for a chance for the Apache group to catch up rather than making a point about version control issues. I wouldn;t mind less of the "X. and I set out the requirements ages ago" attitude. One of the things I have always found very attractive about Tim is that he doesn't try to throw his weight arround. The 1.1 draft has not changed materially since the great cullback in May. The wording has changed somewhat but the protocol itself has been stable. Now the IESG could in theory reject the draft but they would be very ill advised to do so. In the first place there is no substantive debate in the working group over 1.1, there are no outstanding controversies that concern it. The Internet is not quite the place it was five years ago when returning a draft to a working group for further consideration was of little import. Today there is half the goddam stock market and an election riding on the Web. The HTTP/1.1 draft is already late and more than one very senior and very influential person has made it very clear that if the IESG does not play ball it will be taken away from them. If the IESG reject the draft they will have to have one hell of a good reason for it. Now lets consider what the draft is being forwarded as consideration as. RFC - how many people remember what those words mean? REQUEST for COMMENTS. The draft is submitted as a proposed standard. There was a time when having an implementation of a standard before it was proposed was considered something of a good thing. Now Roy may be correct in his statement of the IETF rules but hes entirely out of line concerning their spirit. The idea is to develop good protocols which have well defined specifications which ensure that applications interoperate. I don't think that the lawyerly attitude helps. If people think thats how they want to work then they better expect to make room for some real lawyers to join the group. Phill
Received on Thursday, 15 August 1996 19:20:28 UTC