Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 05 September 2007 19:00 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 1IT079-0001N1-PU; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:00:35 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1IT078-0001Mg-45 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org;
Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:00:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IT077-0001MY-Qp
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:00:33 -0400
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IT076-0002zk-B0
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:00:33 -0400
Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250])
by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA
id <Rt78ygBOxlak@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:00:28 +0100
Message-ID: <46DEFCF6.2090101@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:01:10 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12)
Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the
WG?
References: <46BDE42A.2040808@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <46BDE42A.2040808@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc: 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
Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi folks, > Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I > would like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC > 2817 (Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1) and RFC 2818 (HTTP Over TLS) > should be in scope for the proposed WG. > > Question: Should RFC 2817 and/or RFC 2818 revision be in scope for the > WG? > > Please chose one of the following answers: > > 1). No > 2). Yes, only add RFC 2818bis to the charter > 3). Yes, only add RFC 2817bis to the charter > 4). Yes, add both RFC 2817bis and RFC 2818bis to the charter > 5). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently > proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG") > 6). I have another opinion, which is .... > > Please send answers to the mailing list, or directly to me *and* Mark > Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>et>. > And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of > answers. I've reviewed replies with Mark and here are the results: RFC 2818 and/or RFC 2817 No (neither) - 1 person RFC 2818bis only - 1 person RFC 2817bis only - none Maybe - 7 people So consensus seems to be in favor of "Maybe". Based on the poll results I would recommend not to change the proposed Charter to say anything about RFC 2817 or RFC 2818.
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 b… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 b… Keith Moore
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 b… Alexey Melnikov