- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:58:41 +1000
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 31/05/2007, at 1:30 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > The HTTP auth model needs a lot of work. Agreed. > Creating an update without addressing it seems to me pointless. Not to me. The scope of the two activities is vastly different; I've only seen support for doing minor changes and clarifications to 2616, while 2617 needs wholesale revision or replacement in many eyes. To be fair, there are some small clarification/editorial-type issues (e.g., encoding of credentials) in 2617 that could be addressed by this style of charter. The concern that I have is that a) it would be difficult to keep the lid on and limit it to just those changes, and b) doing so would do a lot of good in the world, considering Kieth's point. Paul just noted that if the efforts are temporally linked, doing them separately is a waste of resources. I'm wondering if they are; e.g., could a WG do 2616bis, and then be re-chartered to do 2617bis (with a similar scope)? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:58:48 UTC