Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

>> Well, RFC2616 needs updating, so does RFC2617. Why does this need to
>> be the same activity?
>
> If the effort for the two are temporally linked (they have to be done
> at the same time), and there will be a lot of overlap in the groups
> working on the two (that is, HTTP implementers and HTTP weenies are
> needed for both efforts), having two WGs seems like a waste of resources.
I'm thinking that perhaps RFC2617 should be moved to historic. 

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 04:20:09 UTC