RE: DRAFT: more details for HTTPtre

Sounds like a plan, but +1 to Julian's comment that this is a document clean-up effort that will require many of the current issues (and PHK's stripped-down dreams) to be postponed to a different context or closed with no action.



But is it "ter" or "tre"?  We have to get important details like this nailed down.  😉



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 6:04 PM
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Subject: DRAFT: more details for HTTPtre



[ 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<mailto: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/