- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:47:27 -0700
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We'll have minutes posted shortly, but in the meantime (feel free to disagree with my estimates of the outcomes): After presentations, discussion focused on a few points, including: - whether this work should happen; i.e. whether it was worth time discussing a charter (room agreed it's a good thing) - whether new authentication work should occur in this group (room agreed that it should be separate) - whether completing work on 2616 should be blocked upon certain aspects of authentication work are done (room agreed that it should not be, beyond normal coordination / liaison) - whether revising 2617 should be included in the scope of work (no strong indication either way) - whether incorporating 2817/2818 should be included in the scope of work (positions on both sides, no conclusion) - whether work on cookies (e.g., updating to match deployed implementations, security concerns) should be included in the scope of work (no conclusion) - whether the group should attempt to catalogue the security properties of HTTP (room went back and forth, ended up on the side of doing it) - what the status of a security properties document should be (strong feeling for Informational, not BCP) - whether there was support for doing a substantial rewrite/reorg of 2616 (people indicated they were willing to look at proposals) There were also a few specific wording suggestions for the proposed charter; I'll circulate a revised copy shortly. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 06:47:35 UTC