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

Straw-man charter

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:54:26 -0800
Message-Id: <BA772834-227A-4C1B-9534-070C50DF05B3@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

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/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 06:54:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT