- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:54:33 +1100
- To: <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'Peter Saint-Andre'" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
That sounds like a good topic for discussion in Vancouver. Larry, will you be coming? I'm also reminded of the HTTP requirements summary: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/99mar/I-D/draft-ietf-http-req- sum-00.txt and obliquely of the work at WS-I; http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html Even if it weren't official output, this kind of work could help make sure that the requirements, roles and features in the document are well-defined. Thanks, On 04/11/2007, at 5:57 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > > When we were preparing to move HTTP to Draft Standard, we put together > a 'feature list' so that we could check off whether there were at > least > two independent interoperable implementations of every feature. > See: > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/Reports/ > > This experience and others in other working groups led me to > propose an (experimental) process: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports > > For an extensive feature set document (based on that idea) see: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xmpp-feature-set > > I don't know if the working group wants to take on preparing > a separate document, but when you're reviewing the document > for clarity, it might be useful to review whether the > "feature list" could easily be constructed. > > Larry > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 10:57:40 UTC