Httpbis Status PagesHypertext Transfer Protocol (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2007-Oct-23 —Chairs:
IETF-72 httpbis minutes
SlidesThese are also available from the materials page:
Minutes of the HTTPbis Working Group meeting in Dublin, July 2008 Submitted by Mark Nottingham * 30 min - HTTP draft overview [Julian Reschke] Julian Reschke started us with an overview of progress to date on the HTTP drafts; see attached presentation "RFC2616bis Draft Overview." * 60 min - HTTP issues discussion Discussion centred around i18n in headers and the BNF transition, along similar lines as before. i18n discussion meandered considerably, but ended with agreement in the room that advice should be added to the effect that people should be liberal with respect to consuming both UTF-8 and ASCII in headers, but SHOULD NOT mint headers in anything but ASCII. In the course of discussion header i18n, it was suggested that a separate draft on using Content-Disposition in HTTP might be useful, to clarify its status and problems surrounding it. Regarding the list production in BNF, there was again a wide-ranging discussion, concluding with a tentative plan whereby a shorthand is used for reader convenience in the spec, but an appendix contains the full, legal BNF (ideally, with a menchanical translation from the former to the latter). There was also wide support in the room for deprecating the production of headers with line folding, at least for common purposes (HTTP over SMTP was mentioned as one exception). * 45 min - Security properties overview and discussion [Paul Hoffman] See attached presentation, "Security Requirements for HTTP." Discussion centred around whether there's a need to split the document into 'browser' and 'non-browser' use cases (or a similar division) with no clear conclusion, other than giving the editors food for thought. A number of comments were also made as to the tension between making this document useful and actually delivering it, especially considering that its contents are likely to age quickly. * 10 min - Next steps / schedule review It was tentatively stated that we won't be meeting in Minneapolis, although there may be a design team effort in the meantime to work on suggested resolutions for issues, and generally kick things along.