Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?

2) Yes, only add RFC 2818bis to the charter

My reasoning:
Another Proposed Standard that few people work on and even fewer implement 
(2817) doesn't really harm anything. An Informational reference for the 
in-fact-implemented security technology is harmful; if there are other 
issues with the document, it's harmful too.

Work on what's important.

--On 11. august 2007 17:30 +0100 Alexey Melnikov 
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

>
> Hi folks,
> Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I would
> like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC 2817
> (Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1) and RFC 2818 (HTTP Over TLS) should be
> in scope for the proposed WG.
>
> Question: Should RFC 2817 and/or RFC 2818 revision be in scope for the WG?
>
> Please chose one of the following answers:
>
> 1). No
> 2). Yes, only add RFC 2818bis to the charter
> 3). Yes, only add RFC 2817bis to the charter
> 4). Yes, add both RFC 2817bis and RFC 2818bis to the charter
> 5). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently
> proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG")
> 6). I have another opinion, which is ....
>
> Please send answers to the mailing list, or directly to me *and* Mark
> Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>.
> And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of
> answers.
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 06:05:00 UTC