Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)

Last Modified: 2008-08-21

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis

Chair(s):

  • Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>

    Applications Area Director(s):

  • Chris Newman <chris.newman@sun.com>
  • Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

    Applications Area Advisor:

  • Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
    To Subscribe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
    Archive:

    Description of Working Group:

    HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the
    Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial
    issues. Additionally, after years of implementation and extension,
    several ambiguities have become evident, impairing interoperability
    and the ability to easily implement and use HTTP.

    The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
    * Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA registries,
    ABNF)
    * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
    specification
    * Clarify conformance requirements
    * Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
    * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
    * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented
    and also unduly affect interoperability
    * Where necessary, add implementation advice
    * Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated
    echanisms (e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for
    common applications

    In doing so, it should consider:
    * Implementer experience
    * Demonstrated use of HTTP
    * Impact on existing implementations and deployments

    The Working Group must not introduce a new version of HTTP and should
    not add new functionality to HTTP. The WG is not tasked with producing
    new methods, headers, or extension mechanisms, but may introduce new
    protocol elements if necessary as part of revising existing
    functionality which has proven to be problematic

    The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
    * A document that is suitable to supersede RFC 2616
    * A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  First HTTP Revision Internet Draft
    Feb 2008  First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
    Jun 2008  Request Last Call for HTTP Revision
    Jul 2008  Request Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
    Oct 2008  Submit HTTP Revision to IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard
    Oct 2008  Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as Informational

    Internet-Drafts:

    HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing (160941 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics (117742 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation (93650 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests (50415 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses (44344 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching (117066 bytes)
    HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication (27780 bytes)
    Security Requirements for HTTP (25757 bytes)
    Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations (9955 bytes)

    No Request For Comments

    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.