IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 01 June 2007 07:56 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hu1zo-0006pZ-D5; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:56:28 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hu1zm-0006o8-TE for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:56:26 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hu1zm-0006o0-Iq for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:56:26 -0400
Received: from shu.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hu1zl-0006Kl-CF for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:56:26 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shu.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5E01EE1BE; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 03:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new with ClamAV and SpamAssasin at cs.utk.edu
Received: from shu.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bes.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6EJ6JanaVStJ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 03:56:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by shu.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249BE1EE174; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 03:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <465FD10B.8030000@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:55:55 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <1358AF2C-F967-46D6-B291-BC65126CCDF6@gbiv.com> <8FBD37BC-E635-485D-A368-22D9DE332498@mnot.net> <DAC34319-CB4D-48B6-A53F-66345790F0FA@gbiv.com> <68fba5c50705311804w2d39ea88o985d9b6a8aa33220@mail.gmail.com> <6C26C1C5-B99B-41EA-989A-F86DCF8489FC@mnot.net> <4C044C0E-C6B8-4816-9243-FAB72DA5F24F@gbiv.com> <7E09FD13-FA92-474F-B394-C732393EF354@mnot.net> <8FAE8A21-1B88-448C-8A02-569962440424@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <8FAE8A21-1B88-448C-8A02-569962440424@mnot.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
OpenPGP: id=E1473978
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

>  Let me re-phrase that: does a rewrite/rearrangement affect the Draft
> Standard status? 
one of the main purposes of the document status is to show how much
confidence there is in the specification's clarity and accuracy.  if you
substantially rewrite a specification, whatever confidence you had in
the original specification no longer applies to the new specification. 
and you need to reestablish confidence in the rewritten specification. 
that implies a reset to Proposed.

so basically if you argue that the HTTP spec is so bad that a major
rewrite is needed, you're also arguing for
the rewritten HTTP spec to have a Proposed Standard status.  (as was
done for [2]822 and SMTP).

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email