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

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I haven't yet heard anyone say that HTTP/1.2 or 2.0 is a good idea

Ideally, after 2616bis and 2617bis are ready (maybe even as DS), you
could take 2616bis, s/Latin-1/UTF-8/g and s/URI/IRI/g, and republish
the result as HTTP/1.2 in a 2616ter.  

> 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.

After 2616bis got a proper no-nonsense ABNF I'd also like to see a
corresponding no-nonsense ABNF in a future 2617bis.  Plus the fine
print, e.g. is 2616 md5-sess really incompatible with 2831 md5-sess.


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 07:19:10 UTC