IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 31 May 2007 04:20 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 1Htc8r-0002mj-Q2; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:20:05 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Htc8r-0002me-Bk for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:20:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htc8r-0002mW-1i for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:20:05 -0400
Received: from shu.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htc8o-00053m-Qy for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:20:05 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shu.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF351EE1B5; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:57 -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 BbK2txfK7HKU; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:48 -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 07BB71EE1AC; Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <465E4CD3.30106@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:19:31 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <p06240843c2833f4d7f2f@[10.20.30.108]> <465D9142.9050506@gmx.de> <465D987F.5070906@cisco.com> <465DEA9C.2060508@gmx.de> <p06240866c283b0f79e2e@[10.20.30.108]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240866c283b0f79e2e@[10.20.30.108]>
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: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.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

>> Well, RFC2616 needs updating, so does RFC2617. Why does this need to
>> be the same activity?
>
> If the effort for the two are temporally linked (they have to be done
> at the same time), and there will be a lot of overlap in the groups
> working on the two (that is, HTTP implementers and HTTP weenies are
> needed for both efforts), having two WGs seems like a waste of resources.
I'm thinking that perhaps RFC2617 should be moved to historic.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email