Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 01 June 2007 05:17 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 1HtzVi-00079s-FX; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:17:14 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtzVf-00078N-Nx for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:17:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtzVf-00077p-08 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:17:11 -0400
Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net ([216.86.168.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtzVd-0005Hz-Gp for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:17:10 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [216.145.54.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D99E51937; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:17:06 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <7E09FD13-FA92-474F-B394-C732393EF354@mnot.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8FAE8A21-1B88-448C-8A02-569962440424@mnot.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Image-Url: http://www.mnot.net/personal/MarkNottingham.jpg
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:17:04 +1000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
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

On 01/06/2007, at 2:19 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> One more question (not necessarily for Roy): at what point does  
> rewrite/rearrangement affect the transition from Proposed to Draft?

*shakes head at self*

Let me re-phrase that: does a rewrite/rearrangement affect the Draft  
Standard status? Considering:

>    A Draft Standard is normally considered to be a final  
> specification,
>    and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems
>    encountered.  In most circumstances, it is reasonable for  
> vendors to
>    deploy implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption  
> sensitive
>    environment.



--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/