- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:55:50 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-24 07:42, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>> 2) Maintenance
>>
>> - RFC 7238 ("The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)") from "experimental" to "proposed" (this wasn't a WG item)
>
> Do you want to give an update?
Yes. 1 minute.
>> - 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>
>
> Ditto.
Yes. 2 minutes.
>> - RFC 6266 ("Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)") from "proposed" to "standard"
>
> Can be folded into HTTP/1.1 discussion.
Probably.
>> 3) New stuff
>>
>> - "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Client-Initiated Content-Encoding" (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-cice-latest.html>)
>
> 15 minutes enough?
If we don't extend the scope 10 minutes should be sufficient.
>> - 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)
>
> Draft?
Yes, we ought to have a draft, but I'm not going to be able to write it
in the next few weeks.
>> - 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?)
>
> That seems like an item for 1.1 full standard. However, if we didn't explain it well enough in bis, I wonder what makes us think we can satisfy everyone now...
a) I don't think we even tried.
b) The goal is not to satisfy everyone, but to improve the situation
(people being confused, and trying to put payloads into GET).
>> - 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
>
> Draft?
Maybe, but not probably not before the submission deadline.
>> 4) Session handling (or "avoiding cookies")
>>
>> ...in case we find people, energy, and implementer interest.
>
> That sounds very speculative. Draft?
303 :-)
>> 5) WebDAV related (if people are interested)
>
> No. :)
>
>>
>> - 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?)
>
> We've talked about things like this before. I'm still interested to some degree, but I wonder about the reward we'll see for the effort expended... What do others think?
I'll move this topic into a separate thread.
> ...
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 05:56:44 UTC