- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:03:50 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
[ 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