- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:12:46 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
> >> My recommendation would be for the group to construct a list of errata >> and get consensus on that list. Each erratum should mention the >> specific sections and text of RFC 2616 that it applies to, what the >> problem is, and what changes are needed to fix the problem. >> ... > > Yes, that's what we have been (slowly) doing over the last months. See > <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/>. I understand, and this is a useful head start. But you don't have a working group yet, and therefore you don't have working group consensus yet. The item isn't completed until an open, chartered working group has actually had time to go over the document. It's not acceptable to skip this step. >> My guess is that if the group sees its task as making a good >> errata-and-fix list for 2616, it will stay focused and finish in a >> reasonable amount of time. If at that point it is seen as appropriate >> to actually update 2616, this will be a straightforward task which won't >> take a lot of additional time. (I do not propose that this task be >> delegated to the RFC editor - the RFC editor function needs to stay >> separate.) > I personally think that this should be a by-product of collecting and > resolving the errata. I disagree, because I think the temptation to needlessly edit text will be too large. Keith
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 19:13:11 UTC