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

Re: DRAFT: more details for HTTPtre

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:42:37 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-ID: <e7a910d8-01e4-cf40-9416-131363f5a267@gmx.de>
On 2017-11-28 03:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> [ 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

+1

> * draft-01: Update references, incorporate errata

+1

> * draft-02: Re-organise to put all HTTP/1.1-specific information in one draft, remaining architectural content from RFC7230 into RFC7231's draft

Not convinced yet that merging the remainder of RFC 7231 with RFC 7232 
is a good thing....

> * draft-03: Start addressing issues, adding text about abstract model
> * [further drafts as needed]

Where I'm not sure whether we want to address *everything* that's 
currently sitting in github issues. Some of this would require changing 
our strategy with respect to handling malformed messages...

> 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.

Let's keep them apart at the beginning. We may want to analyze how much 
they cross-reference each other, and then decide on a per document basis.

> Does this seem reasonable?

Yes.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 06:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:11 UTC