- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 03:21:52 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- 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 Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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.
At worst, basic auth could be back in 2616, but fixing auth in general or
even the issues with digest is way bigger than what planned in the
proposed scope.
> 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)?
If two groups are created, there will be overlap in membership, but not
in the work done, so I don't see a big issue here. I would be against
doing a 2617bis to fix only typos, much more is needed.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 07:21:56 UTC