- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:31:38 -0400
- To: IETF HTTP WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-http@w3.org
I think that it would be a good idea to hold an HTTP/1.1
interoperability demonstration event. The goal would be to showcase
the commitment of all participants to the 1.1 standard and to
discover interoperability prolems. This kind of event has been done
before for other network protocols, and is a great way to get media
attention and to 'focus the minds' of developers.
There are a number of things to be agreed upon; I present my first
cut at such a list just to get the ball rolling:
Venue (When & Where):
It seems to me that the most natural venue would be
Networld/Interop, since the Interop part of that event was
originally organized around just this sort of thing. The last
Interop in Las Vegas featured an interoperability demonstration of
multicast IP vendors. However, the next one in Atlanta (Oct) is
too soon, and the one after that in Las Vegas (May 98) is too
late.
Of course, theoretically at least we could just do the whole thing
over the Internet... if all particapants used published host names
and had a telephone contact for each host name...
Goals:
I'd like to see a list of demonstration goals; probably the MUST
and SHOULD list from HTTP/1.1 would be a good starting point,
which means that there would be more than one set of goals: origin
servers, proxies, and browsers. (If we did get together
physically we could organize it that way physically - browsers at
one end, origin servers at the other, and proxies in between :).
Non-Goals:
I'd also like to see some ground rules for things we agree _not_
to do so that we keep the message positive and simple enough for
our friends in the media to get right.
This is about HTTP/1.1, so demonstrations of integration with
mail, ftp, video streaming and other non-HTTP operations should be
out of bounds (or at least clearly separate from the HTTP
demonstrations).
This is not about making other vendors look bad; it is about
making the protocol look good. To the extent that there needs to
be any final statement from the event organization, it should come
from neutral third parties (perhaps we could recruit some
interested academics who are not connected to any vendor?).
I've copied this to the W3C http list just to pick up any interested
parties there; perhaps this could actually be done under thier
auspices?
Thoughts?
--
Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Friday, 29 August 1997 08:40:25 UTC