Re: RFC 2616, partitioned

Without having more than skimmed it, I like the feel so far.

Is there any way to get some sort of diff from 2616 to the current  
text? Having that was critical for Julian's draft IMO.


On 17/10/2007, at 12:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> I spent much of the last month fiddling with RFC 2616 and the
> various ways that it could be partitioned into the original design
> layers of the protocol.  The result is at
> and demonstrates that the protocol can be described in smaller
> documents without requiring cross-references all over the place.
> In fact, the only cross-references left are editorial in nature
> or places where caching tries to redundantly define other
> aspects of the protocol.
> However, it is far from being readable at this stage.  In fact,
> it shows how little of the operational aspects of the protocol
> were described in 2616 due to the pressure not to make the big
> document any bigger, and how frequently the cross-references
> in 2616 point to sections that have little (if any) relevance
> to the discussion.
> I was trying to minimize changes from RFC 2616, so haven't
> rearranged the sections where they would logically belong (aside
> from one example of chunked decoding pseudocode that was moved
> from an appendix to the one section that referred to it).
> Before doing any further structural changes, I want to commit all
> of the editorial changes from the errata (as tracked under the
> link to DF_Issues).  I will be too busy over the next 2.5 weeks
> due to travel and an office move, so now would be a good time
> to poke holes in the concept, criticize the structural breakdown,
> or point out additional errata that apply to both this and the
> rfc2616bis document that Julian is editing.
> BTW, Julian also has write access to Apache Labs stuff, though
> he may not know it yet.  If anything is changed, please be sure
> to follow the previous examples in commit logs and jira issues.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 10:17:25 UTC