IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org> Wed, 30 May 2007 16:47 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 1HtRKi-0004fk-AK; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:47:36 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HtRKh-0004ff-6U for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:47:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtRKg-0004fX-TB for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:47:34 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HtRKf-0000N2-Hi for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 12:47:34 -0400
Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4UGlVGW020513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 May 2007 09:47:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240853c2835a57d557@[10.20.30.108]>
In-Reply-To: <465D9BF4.40707@gmx.de>
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <p06240843c2833f4d7f2f@[10.20.30.108]> <465D9142.9050506@gmx.de> <p06240846c2834902c575@[10.20.30.108]> <465D9BF4.40707@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:47:29 -0700
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc:
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

Splitting my previous question into two:

a) Will this WG consider clarifications and revisions to main-line 
HTTP-related RFCs, most notably the security ones?

b) Will this WG consider new extensions to HTTP outside the main documents?

If the answer to (a) is "no", then we need a second WG, which will 
likely have a lot of membership overlap. To me, that seems 
non-optimal.

I'm OK either way with (b), but hope that if the answer is "yes" that 
they aren't even considered until all the other work is done first.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email