IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 31 May 2007 12:19 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 1Htjd7-0000Np-El; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:19:49 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Htjd5-0000Ef-Ng for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:19:47 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htjd5-0000Ct-DC for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:19:47 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htjd4-0006JN-0O for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 08:19:47 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 May 2007 12:19:44 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.87]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp037) with SMTP; 31 May 2007 14:19:44 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/yjqVEv4zycgYN7ck5FxtGUf/6F9Sqwgkg2K+6mq wplU/aR3DE96Zd
Message-ID: <465EBD5D.3090208@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:19:41 +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: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
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> <C1E6F3CB-49C6-4C0F-955A-3D69D26987C6@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705310312560.7945@ubzre.j3.bet> <465E7B2F.8010304@cisco.com> <35A8B74A-E78B-4A8B-85C1-7FCE72A7CE49@mnot.net> <465EBBC7.9030800@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <465EBBC7.9030800@cisco.com>
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: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.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

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Mark,
>> Considering the scope of 2616bis is errata, and explicitly not new 
>> features/mechanisms, I'm not sure I follow. Do you think that 
>> designing new auth mechanisms will expose new errata?
>>
>> My initial thought is that it's much more likely that it'll require 
>> who new features, or no changes to HTTP at all.
> 
> If you do the errata and then we need any update to cover authentication 
> - whatsoever - we end up with bisbis.  That's my point.

But that would be an update to RCF2617, not RFC2616bis, right?

Best regards, Julian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email