- From: hedlund <hedlund@best.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
- To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > [...] I do not > > know what were the primary motivations for developing RFC 2109, nor > > what was discussed during the bulk of its development, nor have any > > way to access and review those discussions. That all was done by > > a "sub-group" without archiving of its discussions. This matter > > did not get fully "on-track" w.r.t to IETF standardization principles > > until discussions about fixing the bugs in RFC 2109 had commenced, > > and the more formally structured HTTP-State sub-group with a formal, > > reliably archived mail-list were "implemented". The state subgroup was formed out of http-wg; see <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q4/0144.html> and following messages in the "Revised Charter" thread; and the minutes of the December 1995 IETF (Dallas), which directly mention the subgroup formation: <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q4/0465.html>. The state subgroup had several conference calls on which I took minutes; I can probably dig them up if needed, though commentURL did not arise out of those discussions. [Larry Masinter writes:] > In any case, the RFC itself is pretty self-explanatory. One hopes! > Yes, the arguments for "commentURL" were as a response to difficulties > with "Comment" in 2109. Personally, I'd rather see "Comment" removed > than to continue to add capabilities to it. I still think this whole discussion is totally pointless without buy-in from vendors. <hedlund@best.com>
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 1997 14:22:09 UTC