Subject: An RFC2616bis issues list

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:34:39 -0700

I've put together a first go at an issues list for revising RFC2616.
   http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

It marks the issues that were already considered closed on Scott's  
errata list and draft-gettys (and Yves and Julian's -01).

It also includes a number of open issues that have come up on the  
mailing list over the last few years, but that decisions haven't been  
made for yet. For these, I'll try to capture fully-formed proposals  
(i.e., they have text ready for editors and some level of consensus  
on the list) as they come by, but won't mark them closed for the time  
being. I'm going to ask Yves and Julian to NOT incorporate proposals  
for a while, until the way forward becomes clearer, process-wise.

In the meantime, it would be great to get discussion going, and raise  
any new issues. I'll add them as they come up, as long as they're in- 
scope for revising RFC2616. Flagging them with a distinctive Subject  
(e.g., "NEW ISSUE") would be helpful.

Cheers,

P.S. This doesn't so much replace Scott's errata list, as it does  
build on it for the forming effort around RFC2616bis.

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:47:34 +0100

Hi,

as part of reviewing the references section I discovered that RFC1866 
and RFC2069 aren't mentioned anywhere in the spec. These references 
probably are leftovers from revising RFC2068.

Proposal: remove the references.

Best regards, Julian