- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:31 -0400
- To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> 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