Re: Response to appeal by Robert Sayre dated 2006-08-29


thanks for following up even though the outcome was as expected.

Robert Sayre schrieb:
> Atompub,
> Sorry, I guess you're stuck with the complete nonsense in your current 
> draft. Even though RFC2617 is already a draft standard.

Well, maybe the members of the working group want to consider to have 
the protocol published somewhere else (remember there was a big 
discussion about W3C vs IETF before this working group was formed?).

> Which mechanism will become required to implement for all HTTP/1.1 
> implementations? You can't cycle at DS without picking one.

One potential outcome may be that there'll be no revision of the spec.

> "It means what we want it to mean". Below, there are some brief 
> responses to the irrelevant citations that were included.
> I guess I'll head over to Apache and write some client support for their 
> new HTTP security standards.

Sounds good. Any pointers to what's going on there? A good security 
mechanism implemented both in Apache httpd and Mozilla clearly would be 
A Good Thing.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:57:59 UTC