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

draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04 submitted, was: What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:42:42 +0100
Message-ID: <47405D72.8050205@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

OK,

I have now submitted draft 04.

TXT version: <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.txt>

HTML version: 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html>

This draft contains those changes that are either strictly editorial, or 
for which I believe there was a consensus on the mailing list. (Note 
that this document is just one input for the Working Group, and any 
change made here can be excluded from the WG's drafts later on).

Changes since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03:

    Add issues "i19-bodies-on-GET", "i20-default-charsets-for-text-media-
    types", "i22-etag-and-other-metadata-in-status-messages", "i23-no-
    store-invalidation", "i24-requiring-allow-in-405-responses", "i27-
    put-idempotency", "i28-connection-closing", "i29-age-calculation",
    "i30-header-lws", "i32-options-asterisk", "i33-trace-security-
    considerations", "i35-split-normative-and-informative-references",
    "i37-vary-and-non-existant-headers", "i38-mismatched-vary", "i39-
    etag-uniqueness", "i40-header-registration", "i41-security-
    considerations", "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair", "i69-clarify-requested-
    variant", "i70-cacheability-of-303", "i71-examples-for-etag-
    matching", "i72-request-method-registry", "i73-clarification-of-the-
    term-deflate", "i74-character-encodings-for-headers", "i75-rfc2145-
    normative", "i76-deprecate-305-use-proxy", "i77-line-folding", "i78-
    relationship-between-401-authorization-and-www-authenticate", "i79-
    content-headers-vs-put", "i80-content-location-is-not-special", "i81-
    content-negotiation-for-media-types", "i82-rel_path-not-used" and
    "i83-options-asterisk-and-proxies" and "i85-custom-ranges".

    Reopen and close issue "i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-
    explanation".

    Resolve issues "unneeded_references" and "i62-whitespace-in-quoted-
    pair" (as duplicate of "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair").

    Add and resolve issues "abnf-edit", "consistent-reason-phrases",
    "i25-accept-encoding-bnf", "i26-import-query-bnf", "i31-qdtext-bnf",
    "i65-informative-references", "i66-iso8859-1-reference", "i68-
    encoding-references-normative", "i84-redundant-cross-references",
    "i86-normative-up-to-date-references", "i87-typo-in-13.2.2", "media-
    reg" (which wasn't resolved by drafts -02 and -03, after all),
    "remove-CTE-abbrev", "rfc1766_normative", "rfc2396_normative" and
    "usascii_normative".

    Add new section "Normative References" (the old "References (to be
    classified)" section will be removed once all references are re-
    classified).

    Update contact information for Jim Gettys.

Edits continue at 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>. 


Best regards, Julian



Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Sure. By the time we could call this a WG draft, we should be able to 
>> confirm consensus on those issues.
> 
> OK, I have put up a draft draft -04 at 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-lafon-rfc2616bis>, see
> 
> - <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html> (HTML)
> 
> - 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04-from-03.diff.html> 
> (diff to previous)
> 
> I'm planning to submit this over the weekend; if somebody wants to check 
> whether it contains changes it shouldn't, or misses to include things 
> that should be in, please let me know.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2007 15:43:05 GMT

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