Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document set

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 17 March 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 7A11421F8ABC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7mD3bfjCKq1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964ED21F8AAC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UHIgj-0002IY-HR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:52:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:52:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UHIgj-0002IY-HR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UHIgZ-0002Hk-2R for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:51:59 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UHIgX-0002Kf-WA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:51:59 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.42.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F72A509B6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:51:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:51:32 +1100
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.398, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UHIgX-0002Kf-WA 7daf99949120db3aff68fbc12d689720
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Working Group Last Call on the HTTPbis document set
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17044
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Since our last Working Group Last Calls on the RFC2616bis documents, there have been a number of substantial changes, brought about both by discussion and the editors' initiative (as discussed in Orlando). 

As such, we're having another (hopefully final) Working Group Last Call on the entire document set:

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-22.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-22.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22.txt

* Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-22
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-22.txt

* Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-11
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-11.txt

* Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme Registrations
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-06
  Diffs from the previous WGLC: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-06.txt

This WGLC will close on April 30, 2013.


Providing Feedback
----------------

Your input should be sent to this mailing list, clearly marked with "WGLC" and the appropriate part. E.g., with Subject lines such as:

Subject: WGLC review of p1-messaging
Subject: WGLC issue: "foo" in p2

Issues that you believe to be editorial in nature (e.g., typos, suggested re-phrasing) can be grouped together in a single e-mail. Substantive issues (what we call "design" issues) that may need discussion should be sent one per e-mail, with a descriptive subject.

If you disagree with the resolution of a previously discussed issue, you're encouraged to note that at this time.

I'd especially encourage those who review the documents without finding significant issues to say so on the list; one of the challenges we have is to show that the documents have seen adequate review, and this becomes difficult when people are quiet.

Also, please bring these documents to the attention of those HTTP implementers who may not have been following this process closely; they are likely to be the ones that go forward to IETF Last Call, then replacing RFC2616.

Thanks for your efforts,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/