Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
-----------------------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2011-12-09
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Mark Nottingham <
[email protected]>
Applications Area Director(s):
Pete Resnick <
[email protected]>
Peter Saint-Andre <
[email protected]>
Applications Area Advisor:
Peter Saint-Andre <
[email protected]>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:
[email protected]
To Subscribe:
[email protected]
In Body: subscribe
Archive:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
Description of Working Group:
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,
ABNF)
* Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
specification
* 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
applications
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
The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP and should
not add new functionality to HTTP. The WG is not tasked with producing
new methods, headers, or extension mechanisms, but may introduce new
protocol elements if necessary as part of revising existing
functionality which has proven to be problematic.
The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document (or set of documents) that is suitable to supersede RFC
2616 and move RFC 2817 to Historic status
* A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP
Goals and Milestones:
Done First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
Done First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Nov 2010 Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
Nov 2010 Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
Apr 2011 Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a Draft
Standard
Apr 2011 Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as
Informational
Internet-Drafts:
Posted Revised I-D Title <Filename>
------ ------- --------------------------------------------
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching
Dec 2007 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.txt>
HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
Aug 2008 Jan 2012 <draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-07.txt>
Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations
Nov 2010 Aug 2011 <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-02.txt>
Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication
Scheme Registrations
Request For Comments:
RFC Stat Published Title
------- -- ----------- ------------------------------------
RFC6266 PS Jun 2011 Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)