Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 01 June 2007 19:07 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 1HuCSi-00010w-Rn; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:07:00 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HuCSi-00010r-4U for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:07:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HuCSh-00010j-R6 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:06:59 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HuCSg-0004rd-Ep for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:06:59 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Jun 2007 19:06:57 -0000
Received: from p508FA47F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.164.127] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 01 Jun 2007 21:06:57 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/CIxRFJKPCl1JYCalS2yNhN3N13+7zSE/UKzYrM2 apoXZrE+V33GaE
Message-ID: <46606E4B.9040201@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:06:51 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <46605C9B.3080804@gmx.de> <46606B50.6030308@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <46606B50.6030308@cs.utk.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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
Keith Moore wrote: > ... > My recommendation would be for the group to construct a list of errata > and get consensus on that list. Each erratum should mention the > specific sections and text of RFC 2616 that it applies to, what the > problem is, and what changes are needed to fix the problem. > ... Yes, that's what we have been (slowly) doing over the last months. See <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/>. > By the time the list is nearing completion, it should be apparent > whether it's worth the effort to revise the HTTP specification. The > original errata list would still be useful, perhaps as an appendix, > because many implementors will just want to know what has changed. <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.html#changes.from.rfc.2616> > My guess is that if the group sees its task as making a good > errata-and-fix list for 2616, it will stay focused and finish in a > reasonable amount of time. If at that point it is seen as appropriate > to actually update 2616, this will be a straightforward task which won't > take a lot of additional time. (I do not propose that this task be > delegated to the RFC editor - the RFC editor function needs to stay > separate.) I personally think that this should be a by-product of collecting and resolving the errata. > On the other hand, if the working group sees its task as revising 2616, > the chance that it will take several years, dig into a dozen ratholes, > and create even more ambiguity than currently exists, is quite large. I think this is why an attempt was made to restrict the charter as much as possible. Best regards, Julian
- Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- RE: Straw-man charter for http-bis Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Chris Newman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Cyrus Daboo
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Cyrus Daboo
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Yves Lafon
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Robert Sayre
- RE: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for er… Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis John C Klensin
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Robert Sayre
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for ht… Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Paul Hoffman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Lisa Dusseault
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Joe Orton
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… lists
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… lists
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Eliot Lear
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Chris Newman
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Chris Newman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Martin Duerst
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Mark Nottingham
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Adrien de Croy
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… tom.petch
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Keith Moore
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… tom.petch
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Keith Moore
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Mark Nottingham
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Adrien de Croy
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… Chris Newman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Chris Newman
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis der Mouse
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Keith Moore
- Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter fo… tom.petch
- Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis Mark Nottingham
- Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Keith Moore
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… John C Klensin
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Martin Duerst
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Martin Duerst
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Martin Duerst
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Keith Moore
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… der Mouse
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Keith Moore
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Str… Keith Moore