- 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