- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:23:06 +1000
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: "'Eliot Lear'" <lear@cisco.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Paul Hoffman'" <phoffman@imc.org>, "'Apps Discuss'" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 31/05/2007, at 10:13 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > 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.) Robert's draft is orthogonal to a 2617 update; the idea of that is to address the need for MTI security. It would be interesting to compile issues for 2617 as well, to see what the scope of work would be. If we can keep the scope to errata and clarifications (i.e., not introducing new schemes), it might be doable. Anybody? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 04:23:16 UTC