Re: HTTP WG status, scheduling

Larry Masinter:
>Content negotiation:
>   There are several new drafts, and we have yet to absorb them.
>   there's been some discussion.
>	draft-ietf-http-negotiation-00.txt
>        draft-ietf-http-rvsa-v10-00.txt
>	draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-00.txt
>	draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-00.txt
Ehm, the hit metering draft does not belong here.

>        (draft-mutz-http-attributes-02?)

I have different comments on the timing of the different drafts:

1) draft-ietf-http-negotiation-00.txt

As per the decisions at the December IETF, this draft contains the
non-controversial stuff which can be moved forward quickly, so I suggest we
move it forward quickly.  There are no big changes with respect to the
previous version; everybody who wants to absorb the changes should be able
to do so on short notice.

I'd like a last call for this draft as soon as possible, say the end of this
month.  I feel that it is high time to get the Alternates header format onto
standards track, so that servers can start using it.  The lack of a standard
Alternates header format has blocked progress in client-side negotiation for
too long already.

2) draft-ietf-http-rvsa-v10-00.txt

This draft contains the part which was deemed controversial at the December
IETF.  The algorithm should now be less controversial because it is made an
optional adjunct to the main draft: other algorithms can be defined if
wanted.  I have never seen any convincing example (here or on the i18n list)
of a case where this algorithm would break.  I propose to do a last call on
this after 1) has gone through.  If the draft remains controversial, we may
consider making it an experimental RFC.

3) draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-00.txt

Feature tag registration and the core feature set are still very much works
in progress, unlike 1) and 2) above.  Setting up a feature negotiation
subgroup to move forward this work might be a good idea.  I think the May
1997 timing for this work is reasonable.



Received on Sunday, 16 February 1997 10:11:42 UTC