From: Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2000 - 11:10:21 PST
I don't know for sure, but I'll guess that the lack of implementations, and
the lack of intentions to implement, factored heavily in their decision. Of
course, being Informational isn't the kiss of death -- even in its heyday,
the Gopher protocol was only informational, and HTTP/1.0 was only
informational too.
- Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 10:30 AM
> To: Dan Kohn; Fork (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: Document Action: HTTP Over TLS to Informational
>
>
> Nobody wanted to implement it? 8-)
>
> MB
>
> At 08:13 AM 2/18/00 -0800, Dan Kohn wrote:
> >Why wasn't this a Proposed Standard?
> >
> > - dan
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 18 2000 - 11:17:05 PST