Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 01 June 2007 01:12 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 1Htvge-0003Rc-E1; Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:16 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Htvgd-0003RT-Pt for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htvgd-0003RI-GH for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:15 -0400
Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net ([216.86.168.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Htvgc-00038l-90 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:15 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [216.145.54.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B415190F; Thu, 31 May 2007 21:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <68fba5c50705311804w2d39ea88o985d9b6a8aa33220@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net> <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net> <1358AF2C-F967-46D6-B291-BC65126CCDF6@gbiv.com> <8FBD37BC-E635-485D-A368-22D9DE332498@mnot.net> <DAC34319-CB4D-48B6-A53F-66345790F0FA@gbiv.com> <68fba5c50705311804w2d39ea88o985d9b6a8aa33220@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6C26C1C5-B99B-41EA-989A-F86DCF8489FC@mnot.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Image-Url: http://www.mnot.net/personal/MarkNottingham.jpg
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Subject: Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:12:08 +1000
To: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "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

On 01/06/2007, at 11:04 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

> I don't understand why the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I
> think the best way to start is by doing exactly what has been done so
> far. I agree with Roy that we shouldn't rule out large scale
> restructuring at some point, but it might be better to let everyone
> look at a few rounds of diffs before any major structural changes are
> made. The issues list is already getting a little big.

Agreed. As I said earlier, we've already talked about rearranging  
sections, and maybe rewriting parts of the caching section.

Perhaps we're just talking past each other -- Roy, are you really  
talking about a wholesale rewrite, or rearranging parts, or what? If  
you gave us an idea of what you want to do, it might help make this  
discussion more productive.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/