Re: question/comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20.txt

On 27/09/2012, at 12:58 PM, "Fall, Kevin" <> wrote:

>> (The situation for HTTP/2.0 is slightly different)
> [KF]  Right.  So, is the group comfortable with considering this issue in
> the context of HTTP/2.0 discussions?

I think what you really want is to define a new mechanism within HTTP. We can't retroactively change the semantics of existing mechanisms, even in the 1->2 transition, so something new is required.

The proposed (and hopefully, about to be approved any moment) charter does allow us to define new mechanisms, if there's good consensus to do so, and it doesn't distract from our "core" work. 


Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 17:06:37 UTC