http-core status for IETF 106 (Singapore)
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Wed, 13 November 2019 20:06 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A24C12003E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gbiv.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAwSUgph9FI1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB44712004A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1iUyre-00024x-8S for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1iUyre-00024x-8S@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1iUyrb-000240-Vz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:40 +0000
Received: from caracal.birch.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.209.30]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1iUyrZ-0000Vs-Vo for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:39 +0000
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2C5580D93 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-45-192.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.45.192]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 53C86580FF0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:03:33 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Tangy-Share: 77cd9b045e312310_1573675413842_4060589860
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573675413842:3554774737
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573675413842
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EC784845 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:03:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=from :content-type:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; s=gbiv.com; bh=63g4OMtjQiBDyGDhyHn9a/fS Qmw=; b=Du2fnmidazHa6+o9EtEKEAkvPzzL/HLr6N6tue3zDh7/7Rr9CDe+//3o co0FwLZMY9SC44PKarnfI8WJmxcurhackAoGwsvi47R01NQsHfsjtdOxgLNhq/CQ LkCUHkDdOwF4l5IomEL8GErVA1Pz2rx4cazD6oMowMf2+DYkh/Y=
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (ip68-228-81-25.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.81.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2146E84840 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:03:28 -0800 (PST)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a68
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_86019AEC-2D04-44DC-9365-325A7C3C1961"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:03:27 -0800
References: <4C493B18-B0CE-4C53-AF8F-E73D4AE32AF5@apple.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C493B18-B0CE-4C53-AF8F-E73D4AE32AF5@apple.com>
Message-Id: <C1E22CBA-B739-4629-95AF-BFD52E4CA2E0@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=23.83.209.30; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=caracal.birch.relay.mailchannels.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1iUyrZ-0000Vs-Vo 663b58a5543600442e4fc4e237665f25
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: http-core status for IETF 106 (Singapore)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/C1E22CBA-B739-4629-95AF-BFD52E4CA2E0@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37132
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> On Oct 25, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote: > > Our draft agenda for IETF 106 is available here: > > https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf106/agenda.md I assume everyone noticed that the -06 drafts for http-core were published last week: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-06 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-06 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06 We will be discussing those at the Monday afternoon meeting in Singapore. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/agenda#2019-11-18-080000 Diffs since 05 can be seen at https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_semantics_05_to_06.html https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_messaging_05_to_06.html https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_cache_05_to_06.html and a frankenRFC diff of all changes since the last consensus RFCs, rearranged according to the current draft structure to show just the word changes: https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_semantics_frfc_to_06.html https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_messaging_frfc_to_06.html https://httpwg.org/http-core/diffs/diff_cache_frfc_to_06.html As always, the best way to track our work is on github at https://github.com/httpwg/http-core and especially the list of commits and open issues: https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/commits/master https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues For this meeting, we will probably focus on the issues marked with the label "discuss" https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/labels/discuss (which are still being added to, so speak up if you want to discuss something). The following 28 issues have been closed since the last meeting in Montreal: https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+closed%3A%3E2019-07-19+sort%3Acreated-asc with the bulk of text changes being about - refactoring the byte ranges grammar to be extensible (#196, #212 - moving trailer fields to Semantics (#16, #117) - moving payload body requirements to Semantics (#159, #202) - moving retries to idempotent methods (#27, - adding a port registration (#36) - adding a min supported URI length (#169) - incorporating the remaining RFC2818 (HTTP over TLS) text (#236) - replacing "cacheable by default" with heuristically cacheable (#54, #242) - defining requirements on caching incomplete responses (#25, #221) See the "Changes since ..." sections at the end of each draft for a brief summary of what has been changed. We currently have 60 open issues remaining on the list, though 15 are editorial and many others have only small bits left to do before closing. Cheers, ....Roy T. Fielding Senior Principal Scientist, Adobe
- Draft agenda for IETF 106 (Singapore) Tommy Pauly
- http-core status for IETF 106 (Singapore) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: http-core status for IETF 106 (Singapore) Julian Reschke