W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Straw-man charter for http-bis

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:57:25 +1000
Message-Id: <392C98BA-E7B8-44ED-964B-82FC48162924@mnot.net>
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Revision based upon feedback and discussion;

---8<---
HyperText Transfer Protocol Revision (http-bis) Charter

Last Modified: 2007-05-30

Chair(s):
[TBD]

Applications Area Director(s):
Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@sun.com>
Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

Applications Area Advisor:
[TBD]

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To Subscribe: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
In Subject: subscribe
Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

Description of Working Group:
HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the  
Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial  
issues. Additionally, after years of implementation and extension,  
several ambiguities have arisen, impairing interoperability and the  
ability to easily implement and use HTTP to its full potential.

The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
   * Incorporate errata and updates
   * Improve editorial quality
   * Clarify conformance requirements
   * Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
   * Clarify methods and requirements for extensibility
   * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely  
implemented, unduly affect interoperability and are not well-supported
   * Where necessary, add implementation advice
   * Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated  
mechanisms (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for  
common applications

In doing so, it should consider:
   * Implementer experience
   * Demonstrated use of HTTP
   * Impact on existing implementations and deployments

The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP, and  
should not introduce new features or capabilities to HTTP.

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
    * A document that is suitable to supersede RFC2616
    * A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP

Additionally, the Working Group should review (and may document) test  
suites for HTTP conformance, as they are made available.

Goals and Milestones:
Sep 2007 - First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
Nov 2007 - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Dec 2007 - IETF 70 Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Mar 2008 - IETF 71 Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Apr 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
May 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
Jul 2008 - IETF 72 Meeting, TBD
Aug 2008 - Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a  
Proposed Standard
Aug 2008 - Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration  
as Best Current Practice
--->8---



On 06/03/2007, at 5:54 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> Below, I've cut-and-pasted a straw-man charter along the lines that  
> have been previously discussed. It's on a fairly short time-scale,  
> to focus efforts on interop and editorial work, rather than  
> spinning off into large-scale revisions or adding new features.
>
> The tentative path forward is to discuss this informally in Prague,  
> have a formal BoF in Chicago, and start thereafter.
>
> Comments would be very much appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ---8<---
> HyperText Transfer Protocol Revision (http-bis) Charter
>
> Last Modified: 2007-01-14
>
> Chair(s):
> [TBD]
>
> Applications Area Director(s):
> [TBD]
> Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
>
> Applications Area Advisor:
> [TBD]
>
> Mailing Lists:
> General Discussion: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> To Subscribe: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
> In Subject: subscribe
> Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
>
> Description of Working Group:
> HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the  
> Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial  
> issues. Additionally, after years of implementation and extension,  
> several ambiguities have arisen, impairing interoperability and the  
> ability to easily implement and use HTTP to its full potential.
>
> The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
>   * Incorporate errata
>   * Improve editorial quality
>   * Clarify conformance requirements and targets
>   * Eliminate ambiguities where they affect interoperability
>   * Document the extensibility model of HTTP
>   * Add implementation advice (e.g., deprecating problematic  
> optional features, if necessary)
>   * Update to reflect current IETF practice
>   * Identify mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms
>
> In doing so, it should consider:
>   * Implementer experience
>   * Demonstrated use of HTTP
>   * Impact on existing implementations and deployments
>
> The working group must not introduce a new version of HTTP. It  
> should not introduce new features or capabilities to HTTP, except  
> where doing so is necessary to improve interoperability.
>
> The Working Group's sole specification deliverable is a document  
> that is suitable to supersede RFC2616.
>
> Additionally, the working group may produce one or more test suites  
> for HTTP conformance, if there is sufficient interest.
>
> Goals and Milestones:
> Sep 2007 - First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
> Dec 2007 - IETF 70 Meeting, TBD
> Mar 2008 - IETF 71 Meeting, TBD
> Apr 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
> Jul 2008 - IETF 72 Meeting, TBD
> Aug 2008 - Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a  
> Proposed Standard
> --->8---
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT