Re: Revising RFC2616 - what's happening

Bjoern Hoehrmann schrieb:
> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> To help find out, a few things have been happening;
>>    * Yves Lafon and Julian Reschke have published an I-D that re- 
>> states RFC2616 using xml2rfc, so that people can verify it's a  
>> faithful transcription. Soon, they'll publish an -01 that  
>> incorporates the errata that Scott has captured in < 
>> NET/http-errata> (which didn't require additional discussion).
> I think it would be a mistake to keep the document in its current form
> as a monolithic document; it should be split into several documents to
> make the whole thing approachable. Obvious candidates for separate specs
> would be caching, content negotiation, message format, and URL schemes.

Not convinced. For instance, the definition of HTTP URLs currently seems 
to fit into two pages. Regarding the other areas you mention, it may be 
non-trivial to separate them properly.

>>    * I'm working on an issues list that captures all of the problems  
>> that have popped up on the list, so that we can track proposed errata  
>> and clarifications. Expect to see the first revision of that soon.
> Is there any chance to set up a usable issue tracking system?

While there's nothing else in place, I'm maintaining a list (tracking 
the document changes) over at 

>> Further down the road, we'll need to figure out if, when and how a WG  
>> should be (re-)formed. There's also the opportunity to do interop  
>> work, and perhaps even a test suite (something that I've heard a few  
>> people express interest in), if enough people are willing to do it.
> There is btw.

Well, that group doesn't seem to be active, so I'd recommend to have 
these kinds of discussions over here.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 13:40:54 UTC