W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

agenda/charter brainstorming

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:43:38 +0200
Message-ID: <53A7E8BA.8090809@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi there,

here are some ideas for what the WG could/should work on in the 
post-HTTP2-LC time:


1) Revise RFC 7230..5

- collect errata

- collect suggested improvements, such as those which would make the 
interface to the HTTP/2 spec clearer

- continue the process of checking the spec against reality, and in case 
of disagreements, see whether we need either to fix the spec, or fix 
implementations (no-transform comes to mind from recent discussions)

- with the current charter, we couldn't adopt new stuff - I think the 
revision should be allowed to pull in minor extension specs (which would 
need to be proposed standards as well)

- progress from "proposed" to "standard"


2) Maintenance

- RFC 7238 ("The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent 
Redirect)") from "experimental" to "proposed" (this wasn't a WG item)

- RFC 5987 ("Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer 
Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters") from "proposed" to "standard" 
(this wasn't a WG item) - see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-latest.html>

- RFC 6266 ("Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the 
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)") from "proposed" to "standard"


3) New stuff

- "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding" 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-cice-latest.html>)

- Analyzing the issue of range requests vs compression (we should at 
least write down what the problem is, so we don't have to have the whole 
discussion again)

- Another thing that comes up again and again is GET vs POST, and why 
there isn't a generic safe retrieval operation that takes a request body 
(describe the problem, document pros and cons, define an experimental 
new method?)

- Header field syntax is something people continue to struggle with; 
maybe define how to use JSON in header fields to make things easier for 
new header field definitions


4) Session handling (or "avoiding cookies")

...in case we find people, energy, and implementer interest.


5) WebDAV related (if people are interested)

- internet media types for WebDAV payloads (and maybe link relations)

- splitting out COPY/MOVE so they become more generic

- maybe even a JSON mapping

- notifications (HTTP/2 push?)


and finally...:

6) Proxies

- describe the current situation (adopt 
draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem as a WG item for publication as 
informational document)

- while working on the above, make decisions about which of the problems 
described in the document we want to work on in this WG (or 
alternatively find alternative venues, such as TLS or a httpproxy WG)


Feedback appreciated,

Julian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 08:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC