- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:50:58 +0200
- To: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: ietf@ietf.org, atom-protocol@imc.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Robert, 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?). > HTTP-WG, > > 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. > IESG, > > "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