Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis)

On 17/10/2007, at 9:25 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> In contrast, I think this part of the proposed charter
>> The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP, and
>> should not introduce new features or capabilities to HTTP.
> goes beyond that and makes a technical decision on what is best
> for the evolution of HTTP before the WG even starts.  I don't
> think that's why we have charters.  The WG can make that decision.

I disagree; one of the functions of a good charter is to scope the  
work, so that participants understand what they've committed to do.  
It's a very effective tool for avoiding known ratholes. While the  
established procedures usually end in the correct result, it takes a  
lot of time to wade through all of the "I'd like to add a X header/ 
method/feature to HTTP" requests (as we see very often on the http  
list), and that can impede the progress of the WG. Letting people  
know that this is not the place that you take your favourite new  
protocol extension to is a good thing for both sides.

I'm fine with "should not introduce new features" here, by the way  
(i.e., I'm not holding out for "must not"). I just think the WG needs  
some guidance about the proposed scope of the group. I haven't yet  
heard anyone say that HTTP/1.2 or 2.0 is a good idea, and many have  
said it's a bad idea.

WRT authentication: I agree with most of what you say; it's just that  
such work would likely be on a much different timescale than revising  
2616. Re-chartering to do it afterwards has been discussed.


Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 23:59:23 UTC