Re: Fwd: Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document set

Thanks for the reminder. That would be
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/1253.html

This part on representations might be of interest to some TAG members:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-3
It is *very* different from what 2616 says. It's unfortunate that the word
was recycled.

Resources:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-2

303
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-6.4.4

Content-location
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-3.1.4.2

PUT
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-4.3.4

Overall the new spec puts a heavy REST layer on top of HTTP that was not
present in 2616. (Of course, since 2616 predates REST.) An uninitiated
reader might take the REST theory to be normative, but I don't see how it
can be, given that the deployed base certainly doesn't conform to it. I'm
sure the spec will provide lots of yummy new fodder for spec-lawyering in
the years to come.

Best
Jonathan

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> Reminder: the Working Group Last Call ends in one week from now.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
> On 2013-03-18 21:42, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>
>> (This relates to ACTION-682, on which more later. Jonathan)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Mark Nottingham* <mnot@mnot.net <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>>
>> Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM
>> Subject: Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document set
>> To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Group"
>> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>>
>>
>> Since our last Working Group Last Calls on the RFC2616bis documents,
>> there have been a number of substantial changes, brought about both by
>> discussion and the editors' initiative (as discussed in Orlando).
>>
>> As such, we're having another (hopefully final) Working Group Last Call
>> on the entire document set:
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-**messaging-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-**
>> messaging-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22.txt>
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-**semantics-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-**
>> semantics-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22.txt>
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-**conditional-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-**
>> conditional-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-22.txt>
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-**range-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22.txt>
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-**cache-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22.txt>
>>
>> * Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-22<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-22>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-**auth-22.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-22.txt>
>>
>> * Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-method-**registrations-11<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-11>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-**
>> method-registrations-11.txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-11.txt>
>>
>> * Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme
>> Registrations
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-**
>> registrations-06<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-06>
>>    Diffs from the previous WGLC:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-**
>> authscheme-registrations-06.**txt<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-06.txt>
>>
>> This WGLC will close on April 30, 2013.
>>
>>
>> Providing Feedback
>> ----------------
>>
>> Your input should be sent to this mailing list, clearly marked with
>> "WGLC" and the appropriate part. E.g., with Subject lines such as:
>>
>> Subject: WGLC review of p1-messaging
>> Subject: WGLC issue: "foo" in p2
>>
>> Issues that you believe to be editorial in nature (e.g., typos,
>> suggested re-phrasing) can be grouped together in a single e-mail.
>> Substantive issues (what we call "design" issues) that may need
>> discussion should be sent one per e-mail, with a descriptive subject.
>>
>> If you disagree with the resolution of a previously discussed issue,
>> you're encouraged to note that at this time.
>>
>> I'd especially encourage those who review the documents without finding
>> significant issues to say so on the list; one of the challenges we have
>> is to show that the documents have seen adequate review, and this
>> becomes difficult when people are quiet.
>>
>> Also, please bring these documents to the attention of those HTTP
>> implementers who may not have been following this process closely; they
>> are likely to be the ones that go forward to IETF Last Call, then
>> replacing RFC2616.
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>