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

Re: agenda/charter brainstorming

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:53:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbe8kUXXYzqGQHqe6cShSGCb94JymHoJLnxGAyu-ps07Yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> here are some ideas for what the WG could/should work on in the
> post-HTTP2-LC time:
>
> [snip]
>
> 3) New stuff
> [snip]
> - 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?)
>

+0.5 ... I'm not entirely convinced yet that this is necessary but I
have seen the use case crop up fairly often, particularly in API
discussions. A Payload-bearing GET (PGET?) would, at the very least,
make for a worthwhile experiment, if only to prove or disprove it's
utility. I'm certainly willing to help write something up.

> - 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
>

+1 ... but I would frame the problem differently: Existing header
syntax is inefficient, inconsistent and incomplete at best. We need
efficient binary encodings, UTF-8 support and reliable extensibility.
Introducing JSON-based headers would be a mistake. Again, I'm willing
to continue the previous work I did around BOHE and help write this
up.

>
> 4) Session handling (or "avoiding cookies")
>
> ...in case we find people, energy, and implementer interest.
>

+1.

- James

>[snip]
> 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 15:54:42 UTC

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