- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:59:21 +0100
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Robert Sayre schrieb: > It seems obvious that these two clauses are incompatible. We've > discussed this on the list before. I have a draft that states: > > It is possible that HTTP will be revised in the future. HTTP 1.1 > [RFC2616] > and Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers [RFC2145] define > conformance requirements in relation to version numbers. In HTTP 1.1, > all authentication mechanisms are OPTIONAL, and no single transport > substrate is specified. Any HTTP revision that adds a mandatory security > mechanism or transport substrate MUST increment the HTTP version > number appropriately. > > Does that paragraph contain incorrect information? If not, the charter > is inappropriate, because it disregards the IETF consensus recorded in > several documents. I think that analysis is correct. The charter should state that the issue needs to be resolved, but should avoid saying anything about the outcome. > Thoughts? As far as I can tell, we have reached a deadlock here, so I'd be surprised if there was progress any time soon. That being said, I'd *love* to see an official IESG statement about how they think existing specifications are supposed to be revised and progressed while introducing new mandatory requirements. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:59:39 UTC