- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:15:32 -0700
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com
I guess I underestimated how jumpy people already are. The only thing
I did was repeat what we all agreed to at the LA IETF, which was that
Apache wouldn't start sending HTTP/1.1 in the HTTP-version field until
after the IESG approved the draft.
If the WG feels that the protocol is now stable enough to justify using
it by name, then let's do so, but I think that should be a WG decision
and not an individual decision. My only concern is that the protocol
would change without a corresponding change in the version number.
If the WG agrees not to change the protocol (what goes on the wire, not
the wording in the spec) without also upping the version number, then
there won't be any interoperability problems caused by last-minute
changes.
Larry, is this something you can call for consensus?
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Sunday, 18 August 1996 00:19:13 UTC