Subject: HTTP Bar BoF Summary

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:18:08 -0400

We talked about potential work on 2616.

Everyone seemed to agree that cleaning up the document (e.g., folding  
in errata, documenting the extensibility model) is a clear win. There  
was also considerable interest in going a bit further; e.g.,  
exploring implementation divergence, potentially deprecating features  
that have proven to be interoperability problem, and generating  
operational documentation. When asked, no one thought that this level  
of activity was a bad idea, several stated keen interest, and some  
indicated that they would be willing to contribute actively.

No one indicated interest in working on "HTTP/1.2," but rather just  
more clearly documenting 1.1. There was also interest in defining  
extensions to HTTP, but those who spoke supported focusing on the  
2616 cleanup first.

2617 was also discussed, in particular Digest authentication; while  
there are some errata that could be incorporated in a backwards- 
compatible fashion, several people raised issues that they thought  
could only be addressed by a backwards-incompatible revision to  
Digest (i.e., a new Digest-like HTTP authentication scheme within the  
HTTP authentication framework). Again, there was broad support for  
such work, and no detractors spoke up. There was some discussion of  
whether this would be relevant to the activities in the WAE BoF, but  
those who spoke felt that this effort had a different scope, and  
would be most appropriate in an HTTP-focused WG.

It was agreed that the next steps to explore these items is to:
   * Engage implementers, ideally holding an interop (either virtual  
or real) to discover and explore various problem areas
   * Write a problem statement exploring the issues to be addressed  
more deeply
   * Prepare a straw-man charter for an umbrella HTTP WG
   * Request a BoF in San Diego

We then recessed to drink beer and eat French fries covered in gravy  
and cheese.

Attendees:
- Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Scott Lawrence
- Lisa Dusseault
- Mark Baker
- Dave Raggett
- Carsten Bormann
- Cyrus Daboo
- Thomas Roessler
- Yngve Pettersen
- Alexei Melkinov
- Mark Nottingham

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

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:48:19 -0400

s/Melkinov/Melnikov/

Apologies to Alexei. Did I mangle anyone else's name, or miss anyone?

On 2006/07/13, at 1:18 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Everyone seemed to agree that cleaning up the document (e.g.,  
> folding in errata, documenting the extensibility model) is a clear  
> win. There was also considerable interest in going a bit further;  
> e.g., exploring implementation divergence, potentially deprecating  
> features that have proven to be interoperability problem, and  
> generating operational documentation. When asked, no one thought  
> that this level of activity was a bad idea, several stated keen  
> interest, and some indicated that they would be willing to  
> contribute actively.
>
> Digest (i.e., a new Digest-like HTTP authentication scheme within  
> the HTTP authentication framework). Again, there was broad support  
> for such work, and no detractors spoke up. There was some  
> discussion of whether this would be relevant to the activities in  
> the WAE BoF, but those who spoke felt that this effort had a  
> different scope, and would be most appropriate in an HTTP-focused WG.
>
> We then recessed to drink beer and eat French fries covered in  
> gravy and cheese.
>
> Attendees:
> - Phillip Hallam-Baker
> - Scott Lawrence
> - Lisa Dusseault
> - Mark Baker
> - Dave Raggett
> - Carsten Bormann
> - Cyrus Daboo
> - Thomas Roessler
> - Yngve Pettersen
> - Alexei Melkinov
> - Mark Nottingham
>
> --

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:26:56 +0200

Thanks for the summary, Mark!

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:56:14 -0700

+ John Klensin

On 2006/07/13, at 10:48 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> No one indicated interest in working on "HTTP/1.2," but rather  
>> just more clearly documenting 1.1. There was also interest in  
>> defining extensions to HTTP, but those who spoke supported  
>> focusing on the 2616 cleanup first.
>>
>> 2617 was also discussed, in particular Digest authentication;  
>> while there are some errata that could be incorporated in a  
>> backwards-compatible fashion, several people raised issues that  
>> they thought could only be addressed by a backwards-incompatible  
>> revision to Digest (i.e., a new Digest-like HTTP authentication  
>> scheme within the HTTP authentication framework). Again, there was  
>> broad support for such work, and no detractors spoke up. There was  
>> some discussion of whether this would be relevant to the  
>> activities in the WAE BoF, but those who spoke felt that this  
>> effort had a different scope, and would be most appropriate in an  
>> HTTP-focused WG.
>>
>>   * Engage implementers, ideally holding an interop (either  
>> virtual or real) to discover and explore various problem areas