Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter

Ah, I didn't understand the context.

In that case, I don't think we should expand our charter to include
changing the semantics of HTTP.  That's a can of worms that will
derail the HTTP/2.0 effort.  It's going to be hard enough to keep the
working group productive with the limited scope we have already.

Adam


On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> oddly, the subject of this thread is "our next charter" and my discussion is
> about what the next charter should say. So I'm bewildered by your repeating
> that you think my comment is out of order,
>
> The use case given for limiting semantics changes  is to enable 1.1 <--> 2:0
> gateways.  Adaptations which can be handled in gateways should be in scope
> for consideration, if they meet other HTTP/2 goals.
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
> To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
> Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org"
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 07:58:59 GMT+00:00
>
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> HTTP 2.0 can tighten requirements where loose interpretation in HTTP 1.x
>> leads to performance, reliability, security problems.
>
> Where does the charter say that?  My reading of the charter is that
> "changes to the existing semantics of HTTP are out of scope."
>
> Adam

Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 16:11:14 UTC