W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

HTTP working group status & issues

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:32:04 PDT
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Oct17.003204pdt."2770"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1778
I'm majorly busy from now until the end of the year, so I'm not going
to be able to send out frequent updates. The usual disclaimers
apply even more so: please check this over and see if it matches your

- HTTP/1.1 & digest:
   Expecting RFC Real Soon Now.
   Complaints, editorial advice, ambiguities welcome.
   I was assuming someone else was collecting these, but I shouldn't.

- state (cookies):
   Some minor comments from IESG, resolution & progress
   expected soon.

- security 
   draft-ietf-wts-shttp-03.txt 'bounced' as Proposed Standard. Most
   likely if it progresses at all it will go forward as Experimental,
   after editorial work happens (or a disclaimer gets added.)

   I think that the separation and lack of coordination between
   WTS and HTTP-WG was a serious problem, and that I should have done
   more to prevent this morass.

   I believe the Internet needs documented standards-track security
   mechanisms for HTTP & distributed content. Perhaps we should
   re-charter a new group to work on standards for SSL and applet

- hit metering: draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-00.txt
   Jeff and Paul promised a new draft when I said we were going to
   drop this, but we've yet to see one.

- PEP: draft-khare-http-pep-01.txt
   After I'd miscategorized the status the last time I sent this out, 
   Rohit promised timely attention on PEP. However, I've yet to
   see any traffic on PEP.

- transparent negotiation:

- features registration:
    expecting 'discussion draft' soon

- GET-with-body / Safe: yes
   Internet draft?

- versioning & distributed authoring
   This group meets in November, and has a workshop scheduled
   for the week before IETF. I suggest a BOF/Working group
   for review of specifications.

   I hope a joint HTTP/Transport meeting & BOF for HTTP-NG

- Nits:
   Content-disposition -> 19.6.2
   Mallery's mid:v03007808ae4bdef7de86@%5B128.52.39.15%5D

   Next IETF is already being scheduled. We have Monday & Tuesday
   morning.  There will likely be a HTTP-NG BOF, probably jointly with
   'transport'. There is possibly a 'versioning' BOF, although to be


# 12/96: submit negotiation draft(s) for Proposed Standard
#  1/97: revised HTTP/1.x internet drafts (intended for Draft Standard)
#  6/97: submit HTTP/1.x (suite) of documents for Draft (or Proposed) Standard,
#        superceding previous RFCs. WG closes, mailing list stays open.

# Whether 1.x = 1.1 or 1.2 depends on whether any protocol changes need
# a version number increment. Whether 6/97 submits for Draft or Proposed
# depends on whether we decide to make any additions.

I am not getting any pressure from anyone that we should move
aggressively on 1.2, and some indication that we should push back our
schedule so that we don't shut down before implementations of 1.1
are deployed and there's some clear experience with it. As for the
original schedule I posted a month ago, it's pretty clear that 12/96
is too soon for negotiation, and likely that 1/97 is too soon for a
revised HTTP/1.x.

Note that I've not added back PEP or Hit Metering until there's more
visible progress.

And even though 'safe' is a separate draft, it's separate for
discussion purposes, and should likely get pushed back into the main
HTTP draft.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 00:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC