Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

>> 2616 doesn't *need* to be revised at all.
>
> Disagree. The document is losing usefulness as a reference because it
> is poorly structured, crawling with inaccuracies, and the net is full
> of things that claim to be HTTP but aren't.
is this because implementors tried to read the existing HTTP spec and
failed to grasp it, or because they didn't even bother trying to read
the spec?  (seriously, at least for SMTP it's pretty obvious that a lot
of authors of bad implementations never bothered to read the spec, they
just copied what they saw someone else do. )

revising 2616 will help the implementors who are actually trying to get
it right, and for that reason it is probably a worthwhile effort.  but
it won't do anything for the remainder of the implementations.