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

What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04, was: Vancouver agenda topics

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:31:25 +0100
Message-ID: <473C3C1D.7020304@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list 
>> marked as "closed":
>>
>> i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25)
>> i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26)
>> i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31)
>> i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65)
>> i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66)
>> i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68)
>> i70-cacheability-of-303: WG status active (i70)
>> i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84)
>> i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86)
>> i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87)
>>
>> Should I go ahead and submit a draft -04 with these changes?
> 
> i25, i31, and i70 are design issues. Let me review the discussion on 
> them, and if they need more, I'll ping the list shortly (it's getting 
> late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can close them.

I think we have lazy consensus on i25 and i31. For i70, I'll revert the 
changes until we come to a conclusion.

> The rest are editorial, and can (and should) be incorporated. A new 
> draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential.

So, unless there are some objections, I'll produce a -04 draft including 
the resolutions to:

i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25)
i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26)
i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31)
i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65)
i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66)
i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68)
i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84)
i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86)
i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87)

(plus some editorial stuff).

>>> * Open HTTP issues
>>
>> The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a few 
>> harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process on these:
>>
>> - ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the # 
>> rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30> 
>> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>
> 
> Would you be willing to make a presentation outlining the choices here?

Yes.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 12:31:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT