* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Httpbis Status Pages

HTTP (Active WG)
Art Area: Barry Leiba, Murray Kucherawy | 2007-Oct-23 —  

2012-03-28 charter

Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)


 Current Status: Active

     Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>

 Applications Area Directors:
     Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
     Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>

 Applications Area Advisor:
     Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
     To Subscribe:       ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
     Archive:            http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

Description of Working Group:

  This Working Group is charged with maintaining and developing
  the "core" specifications for HTTP.

  The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
  * A document (or set of documents) that is suitable to supersede RFC
   2616 (HTTP/1.1) and move RFC 2817 to Historic status
  * A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP/1.1
  * A document that specifies HTTP/2.0 an improved binding of HTTP's semantics
   to the underlying transport.


  HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the
  Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial issues.
  Additionally, after years of implementation and extension, several
  ambiguities have become evident, impairing interoperability and the
  ability to easily implement and use HTTP.

  The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
  * Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA registries,
  * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
  * Clarify conformance requirements
  * Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
  * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
  * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and
   also unduly affect interoperability
  * Where necessary, add implementation advice
  * Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated mechanisms
   (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for common

  It will also incorporate the generic authentication framework from RFC
  2617, without obsoleting or updating that specification's definition of
  the Basic and Digest schemes.

  Finally, it will incorporate relevant portions of RFC 2817 (in
  particular, the CONNECT method and advice on the use of Upgrade), so
  that that specification can be moved to Historic status.

  In doing so, it should consider:
  * Implementer experience
  * Demonstrated use of HTTP
  * Impact on existing implementations and deployments


  There is emerging implementation experience and interest in a protocol that
  retains the semantics of HTTP, without the legacy of HTTP/1.x message framing
  and syntax. The Working Group will leverage this to create new major version
  of HTTP.

  Particular goals of this effort include:

  * Significantly improved perceived performance for common use cases
   (e.g., browsers, mobile)
  * More efficient use of network resources; in particular, reducing the
   need to use multiple TCP connections
  * Ability to be deployed on today's Internet, using IPv4 and IPv6, in the
   presence of NATs
  * Maintaining HTTP's ease of deployment
  * Reflecting modern security requirements and practices

  With regard to security requirements, in the initial phase of work on
  HTTP/2.0, new proposals for authentication schemes can be made.  The WG
  will have a a goal of choosing at least one scheme that is better than
  those available for HTTP/1.x.  However, the WG might select zero schemes.
  In addition, non-selected schemes might be discussed with the IETF
  Security Area for further work there.

  In documenting this protocol, the Working Group must:

  * Meet the goals specified above
  * Make it possible to pass through a HTTP/1.1 message with reasonable
   fidelity; i.e., to implement a gateway to or from HTTP/1.1
  * consider the needs of a variety of HTTP implementers and users
   (such as "back-end" or "web api" uses of HTTP, servers and intermediaries)
  * Address HTTP proxy and CDN infrastructure requirements

  Changes to the existing semantics of HTTP are out of scope in order to
  preserve the meaning of messages that might cross a 1.1 --> 2.0 --> 1.1
  request chain. However, the effort may define new semantics to further the
  goals above, along with suitable extensibility mechanisms for defining
  additional semantics.

  This work will be known as "HTTP/2.0", unless the Working Group
  determines that this isn't suitable (e.g., for interoperability).

Goals and Milestones:
  Done     - First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
  Done     - First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
  Jan 2012 - Request Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
  Jan 2012 - Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
  Apr 2012 - First HTTP/2.0 Internet Draft
  Apr 2012 - Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
  Apr 2012 - Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as Informational RFC
  Apr 2013 - Request Last Call for HTTP/2.0
  Jul 2013 - Submit HTTP/2.0 to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:

Generated from PyHt script /wg/httpbis/charters.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -