W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: WG Action: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG (httpbis)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:25:20 +0200
Message-ID: <47206100.20601@gmx.de>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

...should be of interest to many people on this list...

IESG Secretary wrote:
> A new IETF working group has been formed in the Application Area.  
> For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or 
> the WG Chairs.
> 
> +++
> 
> Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
> ==========================================
> 
> Current Status: Active Working Group
> 
> Chairs:
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> 
> Application Area Director(s):
> Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
> 
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
> 
> Description of the 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 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 add new functionality to HTTP. The WG is not tasked with 
> producing new methods, headers, or extension mechanisms, but may 
> introduce new protocol elements if necessary as part of revising 
> existing functionality which has proven to be problematic
> 
> 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
>  Feb 2008 - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
>  Jun 2008 - Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
>  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
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 09:32:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT