100 likes | 200 Views
IETF 72, Dublin Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Mailing List: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Jabber: httpbis@jabber.ietf.org. RFC2616bis Draft Overview. How To Track Us. All issues are in Trac new issues discussed on mailing list design issues opened by chair
E N D
IETF 72, Dublin Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Mailing List: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Jabber: httpbis@jabber.ietf.org RFC2616bis Draft Overview httpbis IETF 72
httpbis IETF 72 How To Track Us • All issues are in Trac • new issues discussed on mailing list • design issues opened by chair • Drafts, including latest edits, are in Subversion • Checkins linked to issues • Diffs on tools.ietf.org and http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/diffs/ • Each draft enumerates non-editorial changes in an appendix
httpbis IETF 72 Draft History (1/2) • 00 (December 2007) • partitioned RFC2616 • 01 (January 2008) • changes from original errata list applied • 02 (February 2008) • some work on BNF fixes, make each document have a complete BNF • clarified requirements on PUT/201/Location • IANA media type registrations updated
httpbis IETF 72 Draft History (2/2) • 03 (June 2008) • BNF: clarify HTTP-date (what to send, what to expect) • BNF: fix quoted-pair • IANA: header registrations, status code registry • Clarifications: Allow header, status 303 (“see other”), PUT, charset quoting, Accept-Encoding qvalue default • Deprecate status 305 (“use proxy”) • Make weak ETags more useful for methods != GET • „latest“ (July 2008) • Clarification on message length/connection closing, OPTIONS request bodies • HTTP Method Registry
httpbis IETF 72 IANA: header registrations • Message Header registrations (according to RFC 3864) have been added (draft 03) • Question: should we include additional information, such as: • general header vs request vs response vs entity • list syntax allowed • I18N (does RFC 2047 apply?) • And if we do so, do we also want to modify the registration process?
httpbis IETF 72 Updating References • Mostly done • Some downrefs for compression specs (RFC 1950..1952), see issue 68 • References to historic URI documents still in, expected to go away when we update to RFC3986, which in turn currently depends on BNF-to-ABNF conversion
httpbis IETF 72 IANA: Status Code Registry • Previously defined in RFC 2817, now in Part 2 (as of draft 03) • Basically keeps the registration requirements, but rephrases them according to RFC 5226 • <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-03#section-5.1>
httpbis IETF 72 IANA: Method Registry • New Registry • In unpublished draft of Part2 • http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html • Registration requirements • identical to Status Codes • „IETF Review“ for new registrations • MUST state safeness • more required fields? • Register methods not defined in HTTP/1.1 in a separate draft • work in progress • see http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.html
httpbis IETF 72 From 2616-BNF to ABNF • Not as simple as it seems • Need consensus how to deal with TEXT production, which in theory allows RFC 2047 based encoding • Need consensus how to deal with Linear White Space and the List Production • Clarify what RFC 2616 really says, vs. what is being implemented • Status • Fixed simple errors (broken prose rules, name collisions) • Removed most prose productions • Started using RFC 5234 core rules • Expanded case-sensitive string constants to octet sequences • BNF, still in RFC2616 format, can be parsed by modified version of Bill Fenner’s parser • Tools extract BNF and track the changes
httpbis IETF 72 I18N • TEXT production in theory allows RFC 2047 based encoding • Observations: • I18N seems to be irrelevant for most of the headers in RFC2616 • Exception: Content-Disposition (which already has its own escaping rules) • New specs work around the issue (for instance, Slug header in AtomPub (RFC 5023))