Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02.txt

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:55:52 +0200

Hi,

this is a new revision of draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http defining the 
Content-Disposition header field as used in HTTP, replacing the 
definition in RFC 2616, and building on the encoding defined in the 
recently published RFC 5987.

(Reminder: the plan is to drop the definition of C-D from httbpis, see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>).

I believe this document is now complete in the sense that it has all the 
Sections it's supposed to have; but there are a few remaining issues on 
which I'd appreciate feedback (those are marked in-line in the HTML 
version at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http>, and 
appear as an appendix in the submitted TXT version).

Best regards, Julian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02.txt
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

	Title           : Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the 
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
	Author(s)       : J. Reschke
	Filename        : draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2010-08-24

HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but
points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard.  This
specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
aspects.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Eric J. Bowman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:28:27 -0600

> recently published RFC 5987.

Hey, Julian.  Shouldn't the last word in the following paragraph be
"filename*"?

"
"filename" and "filename*" behave the same, except that "filename*"
uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use of non-ASCII
characters ([USASCII]).  When both "filename" and "filename*" are
present, a recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" -
this will make it possible to send the same header value to clients
that do not support "filename".
"

-Eric

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:33:14 +0200

> that do not support "filename".

Indeed :-)

Thanks, and looking forward to more comments,

Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:51:18 +0200

> appear as an appendix in the submitted TXT version).

I also just updated Ticket 123 with a proposed patch for the removal of 
Content-Disposition, see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/123/i123.diff>, 
to be applied soonish.

Best regards, Julian

PS: Is this something the "Changes from 2616" Section needs to mention? 
After all, 2616 did claim that C-D wasn't part of the standard anyway...