- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:47:17 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Besides introductions, some process discussion and a charter overview, I > have the following topics up for discussion in Vancouver: > > * Partitioning the HTTP deliverable > * Draft overview / status I think it would be good to have a new version of draft-lafon-rfc2616is available as input. Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list marked as "closed": i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25) i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26) i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31) i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65) i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66) i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68) i70-cacheability-of-303: WG status active (i70) i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84) i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86) i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87) Should I go ahead and submit a draft -04 with these changes? > * Incorporating updates, other documents > * HTTP requirements / features summaries > * Open HTTP issues The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a few harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process on these: - ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the # rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36> - Header value I18N <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i74> - character encoding defaults <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i20> > * Security Properties deliverable > > If you have additional topics that you'd like to discuss, or have input > to these topics (e.g., a presentation, discussion of a particular > issue), please contact me. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 11:47:36 UTC