Re: Working Group Last Call: HTTP/2 revision

Am 23.07.2021 um 02:05 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is the start of Working Group Last Call announcement for this document:
>    https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-03.html
>
> Please take time to review it carefully and raise any remaining issues you see (keeping in mind the scope of work),[1] either on the issues list[2] or on this mailing list. Also, we'd like to hear whether you think this document is ready to progress (on this list, please).
>
> Working Group Last Call will end on 13 August 2021.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> 1. https://www.w3.org/mid/6FC1E45E-7CA7-48A6-81F5-06D7C26BC7EA@mnot.net
> 2. https://github.com/httpwg/http2-spec/issues/

Checked for downrefs given the new intended status... (with
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references>).


Messaging:

> Normative References:
> CACHING: not checked
> HTTP: not checked
> RFC1950: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC1951: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC1952: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
> RFC5234: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0068)
> RFC7405: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC8174: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
> RFC8446: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC3986: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0066)
> USASCII: not checked
> Welch: not checked

Semantics:

> Normative References:
> CACHING: not checked
> RFC1950: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC1951: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC1952: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC2046: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
> RFC4647: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0047)
> RFC4648: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC5234: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0068)
> RFC5280: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC5322: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC5646: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0047)
> RFC6125: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC6365: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0166)
> RFC7405: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC8174: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
> RFC0793: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0007)
> RFC8446: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC3986: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0066)
> USASCII: not checked
> Welch: not checked

Caching:

> Normative References:
> HTTP: not checked
> RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
> RFC5234: [INTERNET STANDARD] (-> STD0068)
> RFC7405: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of internet incompatible with this document's standard level!
> RFC8174: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)



Looking at the details:

RFC1950, RFC1951, RFC1952: [INFORMATIONAL] -- specs for the compression
codings, have been a downref before

RFC2046: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- Media Types. ?

RFC4648: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- Base 16/32/64 ?

RFC5280: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile ?

RFC5322: [DRAFT STANDARD] -- Internet Message Format ?

RFC6125: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- Representation and Verification of
Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key
Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of
Transport Layer Security (TLS) ?

RFC7405: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- these are ABNF extensions, so I'll
assume that the downref will be permitted

RFC8446: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- TLS - Martin T. is already looking into
this.

So we have a few downrefs that were downrefs before, a few to specs that
really should be full standards as well (Base16/32/64), and some more
where the answer is not clear, and the IESG would need to sanction the
downref.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2021 15:51:39 UTC