W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

(revised) HTTP working group status

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:45:37 PDT
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Aug19.114537pdt."2757"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Here is my current understanding of the status of the various WG
items. However, there was a lot of mail last week, I was off-net, and
I went through it quickly.  PLEASE send me any corrections. I'll send
out a revised status note soon.

Previous work:

- HTTP/1.1:  draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-07.*
   IESG last call expired July 5. Jim issued a new draft with some
   fixes based on last call comments. Some additional comments have
   come in. (max-age, charset) Whether they'll require WG action is
   still to be determined.

- digest:   draft-ietf-http-digest-aa-04.txt
   IESG last call expired July 22.  No comments; we're waiting for
   IESG action. (Status unchanged).
   
- cookies:  draft-ietf-http-state-mgmt-03.*
   In IESG last call, expires August 20. One IESG comment, which
   has been responded to.

New items:

- hit-metering
    http://ftp.digital.com/~mogul/draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-00.txt
    Active discussion over:
     - should this be in HTTP/1.2 at all
     - is it better/simpler than draft-hallam-http-*
     - details about the form (HEAD vs OPTIONS, Vary: * vs max-age,
        etc.)
   Expect an internet draft "soon". ("draft-mogul-http-hit-metering"
   probably).

- Revised PEP draft
  Rohit promises an I-D "first thing Monday morning". Monday morning
  has come and gone, we're still waiting.

- content negotiation: draft-holtman-http-negotiation-02.txt
    Andy Mutz will co-edit with Koen Holtman.
    Active discussion in the working group on details.
    (I also have private mail suggesting that W3C may also
    contribute, but no details or timetable.)

- User Agent characteristics: draft-mutz-http-attributes-01.txt
  Aug 1 draft ties in with content negotiation proposal; needs
  non-numeric attributes.
  
- sticky headers: 
  Active discussion. Need Internet Draft.
  Most people want "real data" before considering for standards track.
  Some call to separate out 'sticky headers' from 'header compression'.

- referrals proposal
  draft was expected but didn't arrive.

- User agent profiles
  This was discussed on the list, but hasn't resulted in any
  explicit proposal; it's relationship to content negotiation
  is unclear.

Related items:

 - SHTTP: draft-ietf-wts-shttp-03.txt
   In IESG Last Call, new version was issued August 1.
   No visible discussion in either WG.

Charter:

We actually didn't submit a revised charter; our tentative charter in
the minutes said:
================================================================
>  July 2: (Gettys) Revised HTTP/1.1 draft
>  July 30: (Mogul, Leach): draft on 'hit count' additions
>  Aug 1:   (Nielsen) revised PEP draft
>  Aug 1:   (Mutz)    revised User Agent attributes draft
>  Aug 1:   (Leach)   draft on sticky headers, short names for headers, and
> 	  	   context identifiers
>  undated:  revised content negotiation draft
>  undated:  HTTP Implementation Guidelines draft
> Dec 96: all remaining documents to Last Call
> Target is to close working group by next IETF with work completed.  We
> may not need meeting at the December IETF. Subsequent work (e.g., on
> HTTP-NG) may happen by creating a new working group with a new mailing
> list, etc.

Personal predictions:
  I predict that the result of discussion will be:

* Sticky Headers & Hit Counts will go to "Experimental RFC" status.
  Too many people doubt the utility of these; some experimentation
  and results would be useful, and releasing the drafts ASAP as
  Experimental would encourage experimentation. Early results one
  way or another could change this.

* User Agent Attributes & Content Negotation will progress
  together. With Andy Mutz as co-editor of both drafts, and
  some focus in the group, we'll be able to make progress on this
  and get a Proposed Standard out.

* Progress on PEP depends on better responsiveness by PEP authors.
  (We've yet to even see a draft we can evaluate.)

We might be able to handle the revision from "Draft" to "Proposed"
with only PEP and content/feature negotiation within the working group
before shutting down.

Larry
Received on Monday, 19 August 1996 11:48:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:08 EDT