Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

I'm thinking that these are security RFCs and perhaps not proper scope
for an apps group.  however I don't know why an httpbis group shouldn't
make recommendations for things to change in these RFCs if it can
identify problems with them. 

Keith
>> 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 <[e-mail]>.
>> And of course feel free to ask clarifying questions/correct list of
>> answers.
>
> Folks, I've seen very little answers to my question. I would like to
> encourage people to be more active on this.
> I would also like to set a deadline for this question: please send
> your response before September 3rd.
>
>
>