- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:50:05 +0200
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Am 01.06.2007 um 18:55 schrieb Keith Moore: >> [Robert]That's exactly the argument. If a "more substantial" >> rewrite does a >> better job of documenting HTTP, we should consider it. This >> possibility shouldn't cause discomfort, because our shared goal is to >> accurately document HTTP 1.1, right? > The catch is that HTTP is (currently) specified by RFC 2616, and the > most accurate documentation about HTTP is in RFC 2616. If you replace > 2616 with a completely different specification, you're not "accurately > documenting" HTTP, you're _changing_ the specification. You will > inevitably create incompatibilities between "old" HTTP and "new" HTTP. > > I'm not saying it's inherently a bad idea to do that, I'm saying > that a > rewrite is going to cause some interoperability issues even if you end > up with a much clearer and/or more precise specification. Taking a step back, what needs attention from the best of minds is 2617. Let's face it: http authentication is awkward and compared to the rest of the protocol it feels like a child's toy, sitting in the glove compartment of a BMW. With this in mind, I think a complete rewrite of 2616 is a waste of time and resources. //Stefan
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 18:50:15 UTC