- 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