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

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
> I would prefer that the IESG decide whether or not RFC 2616 needs
> to be updated by a working group.  I would prefer that it not make
> any technical decisions for that working group through the
> imposition of charter constraints.
> ...

I believe the current charter proposal attempts to constrain what we are 
doing in order:

- to avoid future requests to invent new authentication mechanisms 
(recall the long discussion about mandatory-to-implement security),

- to avoid that the (IMHO) most important part of the activity gets 
delayed because we're getting sidetracked too much by other nice-to-have 

- to attract contributors who may be willing to invest their time only 
if there's a chance to produce a new document within a certain amount of 

Personally I really don't care *how* we manage that. Whatever we do, I 
want to be sure that we can publish one document or a set of documents 
in 12 months without *then* being asked for a mandatory-to-implement 
security mechanism.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 17:06:18 UTC