Subject: Vancouver agenda topics

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:46:27 +1100

Besides introductions, some process discussion and a charter  
overview, I have the following topics up for discussion in Vancouver:

* Partitioning the HTTP deliverable
* Draft overview / status
* Incorporating updates, other documents
* HTTP requirements / features summaries
* Open HTTP issues
* Security Properties deliverable

If you have additional topics that you'd like to discuss, or have  
input to these topics (e.g., a presentation, discussion of a  
particular issue), please contact me.

Cheers,

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:47:17 +0100

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Besides introductions, some process discussion and a charter overview, I 
> have the following topics up for discussion in Vancouver:
> 

I think it would be good to have a new version of draft-lafon-rfc2616is 
available as input.

Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list marked 
as "closed":

i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25)
i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26)
i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31)
i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65)
i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66)
i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68)
i70-cacheability-of-303: WG status active (i70)
i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84)
i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86)
i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87)

Should I go ahead and submit a draft -04 with these changes?

> * HTTP requirements / features summaries

The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a few 
harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process on these:

- ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the # rule?) 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30> and 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>

- Header value I18N 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i74>

- character encoding defaults 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i20>

> If you have additional topics that you'd like to discuss, or have input 
> to these topics (e.g., a presentation, discussion of a particular 
> issue), please contact me.
> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:45:45 +1100

On 12/11/2007, at 10:47 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> I think it would be good to have a new version of draft-lafon- 
> rfc2616is available as input.
>
> Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list  
> marked as "closed":
>

i25, i31, and i70 are design issues. Let me review the discussion on  
them, and if they need more, I'll ping the list shortly (it's getting  
late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can close them.

The rest are editorial, and can (and should) be incorporated. A new  
draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential.

> - ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the #  
> rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/ 
> #i30> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/ 
> #i36>

Would you be willing to make a presentation outlining the choices here?

Kind regards,

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:31:25 +0100

> late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can close them.

I think we have lazy consensus on i25 and i31. For i70, I'll revert the 
changes until we come to a conclusion.

> draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential.

So, unless there are some objections, I'll produce a -04 draft including 
the resolutions to:

(plus some editorial stuff).

>> rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i30> 
>> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i36>
> 

Yes.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:25:44 +1100

Sure. By the time we could call this a WG draft, we should be able to  
confirm consensus on those issues.

Cheers,

On 15/11/2007, at 11:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> i25, i31, and i70 are design issues. Let me review the discussion  
>> on them, and if they need more, I'll ping the list shortly (it's  
>> getting late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can  
>> close them.
>
> I think we have lazy consensus on i25 and i31. For i70, I'll revert  
> the changes until we come to a conclusion.
>
>> The rest are editorial, and can (and should) be incorporated. A  
>> new draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential.
>
> So, unless there are some objections, I'll produce a -04 draft  
> including the resolutions to:
>
>>> The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a  
>>> few harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process  
>>> on these:
>>>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:28:23 +0100

> confirm consensus on those issues.

OK, I have put up a draft draft -04 at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-lafon-rfc2616bis>, see

- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html> (HTML)

- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04-from-03.diff.html> 
(diff to previous)

I'm planning to submit this over the weekend; if somebody wants to check 
whether it contains changes it shouldn't, or misses to include things 
that should be in, please let me know.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:42:42 +0100

OK,

I have now submitted draft 04.

TXT version: <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.txt>

HTML version: 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04.html>

This draft contains those changes that are either strictly editorial, or 
for which I believe there was a consensus on the mailing list. (Note 
that this document is just one input for the Working Group, and any 
change made here can be excluded from the WG's drafts later on).

Changes since draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03:

    Add issues "i19-bodies-on-GET", "i20-default-charsets-for-text-media-
    types", "i22-etag-and-other-metadata-in-status-messages", "i23-no-
    store-invalidation", "i24-requiring-allow-in-405-responses", "i27-
    put-idempotency", "i28-connection-closing", "i29-age-calculation",
    "i30-header-lws", "i32-options-asterisk", "i33-trace-security-
    considerations", "i35-split-normative-and-informative-references",
    "i37-vary-and-non-existant-headers", "i38-mismatched-vary", "i39-
    etag-uniqueness", "i40-header-registration", "i41-security-
    considerations", "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair", "i69-clarify-requested-
    variant", "i70-cacheability-of-303", "i71-examples-for-etag-
    matching", "i72-request-method-registry", "i73-clarification-of-the-
    term-deflate", "i74-character-encodings-for-headers", "i75-rfc2145-
    normative", "i76-deprecate-305-use-proxy", "i77-line-folding", "i78-
    relationship-between-401-authorization-and-www-authenticate", "i79-
    content-headers-vs-put", "i80-content-location-is-not-special", "i81-
    content-negotiation-for-media-types", "i82-rel_path-not-used" and
    "i83-options-asterisk-and-proxies" and "i85-custom-ranges".

    Reopen and close issue "i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-
    explanation".

    Resolve issues "unneeded_references" and "i62-whitespace-in-quoted-
    pair" (as duplicate of "i64-ws-in-quoted-pair").

    Add and resolve issues "abnf-edit", "consistent-reason-phrases",
    "i25-accept-encoding-bnf", "i26-import-query-bnf", "i31-qdtext-bnf",
    "i65-informative-references", "i66-iso8859-1-reference", "i68-
    encoding-references-normative", "i84-redundant-cross-references",
    "i86-normative-up-to-date-references", "i87-typo-in-13.2.2", "media-
    reg" (which wasn't resolved by drafts -02 and -03, after all),
    "remove-CTE-abbrev", "rfc1766_normative", "rfc2396_normative" and
    "usascii_normative".

    Add new section "Normative References" (the old "References (to be
    classified)" section will be removed once all references are re-
    classified).

    Update contact information for Jim Gettys.

Edits continue at 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>. 

Best regards, Julian