httpbis IETF 721 RFC2616bis Draft Overview IETF 72, Dublin Julian Reschke Mailing List: Jabber:

httpbis IETF 722 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 httpbis/diffs/ Each draft enumerates non-editorial changes in an appendix

httpbis IETF 723 Draft History (1/2) 00 (December 2007) –partitioned RFC (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 724 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 725 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 726 Updating References Mostly done Some downrefs for compression specs (RFC ), 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 727 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 semantics-03#section-5.1

httpbis IETF 728 IANA: Method Registry New Registry In unpublished draft of Part2 – semantics.htmlhttp://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2- semantics.html Registration requirements –identical to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 method-registrations/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-method- registrations.htmlhttp://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis- method-registrations/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-method- registrations.html

httpbis IETF 729 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 Fenners parser –Tools extract BNF and track the changes

httpbis IETF 7210 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))