- 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