Subject: Second Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 p4 to p7

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:43 +1100

In conjunction with the WGLC for p1 and p2, we're going to run a Second WGLC for p4 to p7. The changes here are mostly editorial, with some driven by previous WGLC discussion; hopefully there shouldn't be any surprises. 

As such, WGLC will end with that for p1 and p2, on November 25.

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-21

  Diffs from the previous WGLC:
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-20.txt
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-21.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21

  Diffs from the previous WGLC:
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-20.txt
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21

  Diffs from the previous WGLC:
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20.txt
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-21

  Diffs from the previous WGLC:
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20.txt
    http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-21.txt

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 p7-caching
Subject: WGLC issue: "foo" in p7

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.

What's Next
-----------

The Working Group will discuss these issues, re-issuing drafts as necessary. Tickets raised on these drafts will have a severity of "In WG Last Call" , and once they are disposed of, we'll see if there's consensus on going to IETF Last Call on them.

Thanks yet again to the editors for their hard work in getting to this point.

Regards,

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