Re: Call for Adoption: Structured Fields Revision (RFC8941bis)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 20.10.2022 01:48, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Based on the previous discussion on the list, it sounds like the group
> has support for revising Structured Fields (RFC 8941) to include the new
> Date type, so we don’t need to add it as part of
> draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit. We also discussed wanting to have a tight
> scope and be able to ship the update quickly.
>
> This email starts a call for adoption of that work, which will begin
> with the existing text of RFC 8941 as the -00 version and will have a
> very narrow scope. My proposed scope is as follows (slightly different
> from Mark’s original proposal, to adjust for some of the discussion on
> list):
>
> - Add the Date type, currently in draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit
> - Make the "Defining New Structured Fields” section align with the style
> guide (https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#structured-fields
> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide#structured-fields>), to
> not recommend the use of ABNF in new header definitions
> - Add clarifications to the use of ABNF in the document (for example,
> emphasize that they are not normative), subject to WG discussion
> - Address minor technical issues and editorial fixes
>
> We’ll run this call for adoption for 2 weeks, ending on November 2,
> 2022. Please respond to this email if you support doing this work or
> not, and if you have comments on the scope.

I fully support this approach.

Best regards, Julian