Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

Hi Stephen,

On 24/02/2012, at 11:54 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> On 02/24/2012 01:24 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding<fielding@gbiv.com>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How many times do we have to do this before we declare insanity?
>>>> I don't care how much risk it adds to the HTTP charter.  They are
>>>> all just meaningless deadlines anyway.  If we want HTTP to have
>>>> something other than Basic (1993) and Digest (1995) authentication,
>>>> then it had better be part of *this* charter so that the proposals
>>>> can address them.
>>> 
>>> Well, Digest already isn't used by anyone :)
>> 
>> A popular misconception because it works unseen.  See tools.ietf.org
>> 
>>> Seriously, someone needs to propose some charter language or this
>>> discussion is a no-op.  -Tim
>> 
>> "Proposals for new HTTP authentication schemes are in scope."
> 
> How would a plan like the following look to folks:
> 
> - httpbis is chartered to include auth mechanism work as
>  per the above (or whatever text goes into the charter)
> - that'll generate a slew of proposals, some good, some
>  bad, some better-than-current and some too complex
> - plan is for httpbis to pick something (one or more if
>  they want, but one better-than-current one is the goal)
> - give all the above a short timeframe (this year, pick
>  which to work on at the same time as re-chartering for
>  the details of HTTP/2.0 maybe)
> - httpbis pick what they want, (zero or more) and go
>  do their stuff

Is the goal for HTTPbis "one or more" or "zero or more"? I see both above.

Again - I'm absolutely fine with soliciting proposals, but requiring output is a different thing.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 02:05:34 UTC