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

Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis)

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:54:27 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240602c334127c7575@[]>
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

I strongly support the formation of this working group.  I believe that
the charter below represents appropriate scope.  A minor concern is this

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

"New features of capabilities to HTTP" is, sadly, somewhat ambiguous,
as there is some disagreement about the extension model for HTTP
(use of new methods vs. use of new MIME types, as an example).  Rather
than getting into that rat hole, I would suggest tightening this to say
something like:

"The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP and
is not tasked with producing new methods, headers, or extension

			Ted Hardie

At 1:15 PM -0400 10/11/07, IESG Secretary wrote:
>A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Application Area. 
>The IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The following draft
>charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. 
>Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by
>October 17.
>HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis)
>Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>Application Area Director(s):
>Chris Newman <chris.newman@sun.com>
>Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
>Mailing list:
>> 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 become evident, impairing interoperability
>> and the ability to easily implement and use HTTP.
>> The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
>> * Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA
>> registries, ABNF)
>> * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of
>> the specification
>> * Clarify conformance requirements
>> * Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
>> * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
>> * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely
>> implemented and also unduly affect interoperability
>> * 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 RFC 2616
>> * A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP
>> Goals and Milestones:
>> Nov 2007 - First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
>> Dec 2007 - IETF 70 Meeting, Vancouver, BC, CA
>> Feb 2008 - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
>> Mar 2008 - IETF 71 Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA
>> Jun 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
>> Jul 2008 - IETF 72 Meeting, TBD
>> Jul 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
>> Oct 2008 - Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a Draft
>> Standard
>> Oct 2008 - Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration
>> as Informational
>IETF-Announce mailing list
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 17:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC