- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:37:46 -0400
- To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
I'm thinking that these are security RFCs and perhaps not proper scope for an apps group. however I don't know why an httpbis group shouldn't make recommendations for things to change in these RFCs if it can identify problems with them. Keith >> 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. > > Folks, I've seen very little answers to my question. I would like to > encourage people to be more active on this. > I would also like to set a deadline for this question: please send > your response before September 3rd. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 19:38:26 UTC