Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

On 5/31/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I'm not ignoring you, Roy. However, you're making the same arguments
> repeatedly. If you make arguments that convince me, or if you can get
> other people to agree with you, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion.
> Neither has happened yet.

I feel that artificially restricting the WG's charter to only discuss
'light editorial' rewrites - i.e. typographical and editing mistakes -
would be setting the bar way too low.

Obviously, any edit of 2616 shouldn't add any features to still have
the end result called HTTP/1.1; but, as an implementor of HTTP, it'd
be nice to have a document that was more accessible to people who are
new to learning about HTTP implementations.  For almost everyone on
this list, we've already got our heads wrapped around the current 2616
structure - so I understand your resistance to making anything but
trivial fixes.  Yet, I think aiming that low does a disservice to the
community-at-large and to the future community - as parts of 2616
unintentionally ended up being complete mush.

BTW, one comment that I've seen mentioned here is that we couldn't
begin to touch 2616 unless we get 2617 to be 'secure' first - if
that's true, can someone please explain the rationale behind that and
what specifically the IESG is requiring out of any new WG with respect
to HTTP authentication?

Thanks.  -- justin

Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 06:29:39 UTC