Hi Keith,
Thanks for the response. Please see my comments inline.
> At least from a process point-of-view, it would just require a 4 week last call.
> Even if a WG were formed, it could have a narrow scope. it would not need
> to consider every proposal for a change or extension to HTTP.
At this point of time, I have not idea of what it takes to make a
WG, a proposal and get it approved.
However, as you mention about "a narrow scope" - I would like to
just give an example supporting this. RFC 821 details SMTP. RFC 2554
is entitled "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication". A very small
extension to 821.
Similarly, we may like to follow up similarly. However, since the
protocol demands strict mention of the version in the following format
HTTP-Version = "HTTP" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
we'd need to call it HTTP/1.2 (cannot have 1.1.1).
> Seems like HTTP has been haphazardly modified so many times that it
> is beyond the point where a 'strategy' could help. Nor is it immediately
I think it's not a matter of choice of having a strategy but the
way things have evolved. 0.9 -> 1.0 -> 1.1. The updates have been
based upon what has been prevelant in market and what the need arose.
Anyway.. let me not digress from the main agenda of the thread.
--
Cheers,
Gaurav Vaish
http://www.mastergaurav.org
http://mastergaurav.blogspot.com
--------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf