- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:51:11 PDT
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Thanks to Graham Klyne helping sort out the status of the various
drafts and helping organize some of the work around it.
A goal is to move content-negotiation from out of the context of
being entirely HTTP-centric, and focus some of the work around
the requirements of _other_ protocols (fax, printing, perhaps 'push')
that also require content 'negotiation' in its broader sense:
protocol elements that describe the capabilities, characteristics
and preferences of recipients, that describe the representation
of entities and alternatives that a sender might send, and extensions
that label additional characteristics of content that are not
captured by the MIME media type.
In order to ensure broad review, I am planning to ask for a BOF
at the Washington IETF to see if there is reason to create a new
'content negotiation' working group on this topic, or if the current
drafts can proceed to RFC without such a group.
Here's a status update and proposed direction for the various drafts:
draft-ietf-http-alternates-00.txt
The Alternates Header Field
Koen Holtman, TUE
Andrew Mutz, Hewlett-Packard
September 15, 1997
Target: Experimental RFC
One question is whether "Alternates" might be recast as a shorthand
for an existing structure, multipart/alternative, where all or all-but-one
of the parts is expressed as a message/external-body; that is, map
this into existing MIME semantics. (Web clients don't actually do
multipart/alternative, so this doesn't really help much for the HTTP
model, but it might work better for other MIME processors.)
Ted Hardie & Andy Mutz have been working offline on this.
There is some question as to the appropriateness of the {} braces
syntax, and it may yet do with a note (in pushing this forward
as Experimental) that the syntax might change before this actually
moves to standards track. I believe Andy's working on a new draft
with Ted's help.
QUESTION: Are there any objections to proceeding with this draft
as an Experimental RFC?
<draft-ietf-http-negotiate-scenario-01.txt>
Scenarios for the Delivery of Negotiated Content using HTTP
Edward Hardie, NASA NIC
July 18, 1997
Target: Informational RFC
Status: Drafted, comments received on HTTP list, revised
Action: Will be extended to talk about other scenarios
Graham Klyne is working on this one with Ted.
Please review this document when the next version comes out.
<draft-ietf-http-negotiation-04.txt>
Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP
Koen Holtman, TUE
Andrew Mutz, Hewlett-Packard
September 15, 1997
Target: Experimental RFC
Status: Drafted, many comments received on HTTP list, revised
Action: Should the Alternates header description just reference
the Alternates RFC? We should be clear about the nature of
the 'Experimental' status, for both Alternates and TCN in a
preface.
QUESTION: Are there any objections to proceeding with this draft
as an Experimental RFC?
<draft-ietf-http-rvsa-v10-02.txt>
HTTP Remote Variant Selection Algorithm -- RVSA/1.0
Koen Holtman, TUE
Andrew Mutz, Hewlett-Packard
July 28, 1997
Target: Experimental RFC
Status: Drafted, comments received on HTTP list, revised
Action: Reflect changes in negotation content features drafts?
QUESTION: Are there any objections to proceeding with this draft
as an Experimental RFC?
<draft-ietf-http-feature-scenarios-01.txt>
Feature Tag Scenarios
Koen Holtman, TUE
July 28, 1997
Status: Drafted, comments received on HTTP list, revised
Target: Informational RFC
Action: Dan Wing (IETF fax) is working with Andy Mutz to
update this to include additional (non-HTTP) scenarios.
Please review this draft when the next version is available.
<draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-02.txt>
Feature Tag Registration Procedures
Koen Holtman, TUE
Andrew Mutz, Hewlett-Packard
July 28, 1997
Target: BCP (covering just registration)
Status: Drafted, comments received on HTTP list, revised.
Action: This document includes both the 'registration procedure'
and also the definition of some initial feature tags. These
should be separated. Ted Hardie is working on this.
<new document>
Content Features For negotiation
[based on work in <draft-ietf-http-feature-reg-02.txt>]
Target: Standard RFC
Action: this document will include the initial feature definitions
(color, size, resolution, etc.) and establish the concept of
content features. It will absorb the features defined in
draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt ("User Agent Display Attributes").
<draft-wing-smtp-capabilities-00.txt>
Capabilities Exchange over SMTP
Dan Wing
Neil Joffe, Cisco Systems, Inc.
August 26, 1997
Target: Standard RFC
Status: This document describes a way of using content negotiation
in SMTP delivery, in the case of direct connection of sender to
recipient.
Received on Thursday, 16 October 1997 23:57:18 UTC