- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:09:28 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham wrote: > * Eliminate ambiguities where they affect interoperability Specifications should not have ambiguities (that is, cases where the specification can be read in multiple ways but no one knows for sure which reading is correct); presumably you mean ambiguities should be removed, e.g. by explicitly making certain things implementation-de- fined or by introducing new requirements if required for interop. > * Identify mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms This sounds rather controversial. >The Working Group's sole specification deliverable is a document that >is suitable to supersede RFC2616. I think the Working Group should be given the option to produce more than one document to supercede RFC 2616; various suggestions what could be factored out have been made here. The group might well decide that keeping everything in one document is best, but it should not be required to recharter if it decides otherwise. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 07:09:37 UTC