- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:13:15 -0700
- To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'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>
I'm sympathetic to the desire to keep the charter narrow, but I wonder if it is feasible to update 2616 without updating 2617. I thought that it was more of a convenience and that the split between the two was (to some degree) artificial. If you really want to limit scope, what do you think about issuing an informational RFC on 'what changes are needed to 2617' (starting with the Sayre draft, I'd think)? Then 2616bis could be published and the group rechartered to do the 2617 update (and, if needed, yet another turn of the crank on 2616bisbis.) Larry
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 00:14:20 UTC