W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

HTTP WG status, scheduling

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:38:29 PST
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <97Feb15.213829pdt."242"@palimpsest.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2386
With the publication of RFC 2068 (HTTP/1.1) and 2068 (Digest
Authentication) and the approval of draft-ietf-http-state-mgmt-05 
as proposed standard, we have two different kinds of tasks:

a) moving the existing drafts along standards track
b) consideration of items left over

Moving existing drafts along standards track:
  - Jim Gettys has put together an issues list for HTTP/1.1,
     which he will announce. This should include issues
     that were discussed at the December IETF meeting,
     topics from the mailing list, as well as errata and
     other issues that have been sent in independently.

  - Dave Kristol has put together an errata spec for RFC 2069,
    which should be applied to create a revised draft, soon.

  - Jeff Mogul has submitted two Internet Drafts to address
    two particular issues
  - Koen Holtman submitted an Internet Draft to address one
    particular issue

Along the way, we have several other items to attend to:

   There is a new draft. There are many groups that
   want orthogonal extensions to HTTP. Does PEP give
   them what they want?

Hit Metering:
   I think we were expecting one more draft and then
   working group Last Call.

Content negotiation:
   There are several new drafts, and we have yet to absorb them.
   there's been some discussion.

Network management:
     It is now HTTP-WG's responsibility to ensure the mangability
     of HTTP agents.

I'm wondering how we can best and most effectively move toward Draft
Standard status. In order to move forward, we need to consider those
elements that appear in multiple independent interoperable
implementations. We also can fix mistakes and clarify intent, based on
the experience of those who have implemented HTTP/1.1.

There was a suggestion that we could have a "new 1.1 suite of
documents going to IESG" by 3/1/97, although doing so would
require some rather extraordinary effort.

While I'm uncertain of how we can proceed most effectively, I don't
think we will be able to handle everything we need to do just with
mailing list discussions and a brief meeting in Memphis. I think we'll
at least need a subgroup concerned with editorial issues, and possibly
reconstitute a "content negotiation" subgroup. When we do have
discussions on the mailing list, we probably need to focus to get to

I also don't think I can run the discussions in the subgroups,
and would like to delegate reaching closure on some of these
issues to volunteers.

Anyway, I'd like YOUR thoughts on process, as well as some indication
as to where people are with regard to implementing HTTP/1.1 against
our current spec.

Detailed comments on technical matters should, of course, be sent
with a different subject line & thread.


Received on Saturday, 15 February 1997 21:45:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC