W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

DRAFT: more details for HTTPtre

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:03:50 +1100
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-Id: <5821D7EE-F4E3-4E74-93CE-FE1D58112258@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[ proposer, not Chair, hat on ]

In Singapore, it seems like there was broad acknowledgement that doing HTTPter is a good idea, but there was some concern about the schedule, especially since QUIC might depend upon or interact with it. 

I think this work would go something like this:

* draft-00: Copy of RFC723X for future diffs
* draft-01: Update references, incorporate errata
* draft-02: Re-organise to put all HTTP/1.1-specific information in one draft, remaining architectural content from RFC7230 into RFC7231's draft
* draft-03: Start addressing issues, adding text about abstract model
* [further drafts as needed]

I think we can get to the draft-03 milestone above in a matter of 2-3 months, and cap ourselves at say six months beyond that.

The intent here is to end up with something like this set of documents:

a) HTTP Architecture and Core Semantics - currently parts of RFC7230, all of 7231, plus more text on abstractions
b) HTTP/1.1  - connection management, mapping to TCP transport
c) HTTP Conditional Requests
d) HTTP Range Requests
e) HTTP Caching
f) HTTP Authentication

We *can* combine (c) (d), (e), and (f) into (a), but for simplicity's sake I think we should at least start by keeping them apart.

Does this seem reasonable?


> On 11 Oct 2017, at 2:43 am, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> We've talked about revising the HTTP/1.1 documents a few times; I think the next step is to agree on a scope of work. See draft proposal below.
> 
> --->8---
> 
> The Working Group will revise the RFC723[0-5] document set. The primary goals of this work will be:
> 
> 1)  To clearly separate the version-dependent aspects of HTTP from those that are version-independent, to aid readers and implementers, and assist definition of future protocol versions;
> 
> 2) Clarifying HTTP's underlying abstractions and guarantees (the "abstract model" of HTTP), to define a target for future versions of the protocol;
> 
> 3) Incorporating errata;
> 
> 4) Clarifying how HTTP is extended and versioned, as necessary; and
> 
> 5) Addressing significant (as determined by the Chairs) security and interoperability issues that are raised.
> 
> Issues that are specific to HTTP/1.1 (e.g., chunked encoding, connection handling) will only be addressed if there is broad (as determined by the Chairs) implementation support for doing so.
> 
> The number and focus of the resulting documents might be the same, or might differ. It is expected that the resulting documents will be suitable for publication as Internet Standard. 
> 
> ---8<---

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 02:05:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:38 UTC