Fwd: Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document set

(This relates to ACTION-682, on which more later. Jonathan)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Nottingham <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 Group" <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
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

* Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme
  Diffs from the previous WGLC:

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

Thanks for your efforts,

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 20:43:14 UTC