1 | 1. Summary |
---|
2 | |
---|
3 | Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 |
---|
4 | Document Shepherd: Mark Nottingham |
---|
5 | Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba |
---|
6 | Publication Type: Proposed Standard |
---|
7 | |
---|
8 | The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for |
---|
9 | distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. HTTP has been in use |
---|
10 | by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document |
---|
11 | provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, |
---|
12 | defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, |
---|
13 | defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes |
---|
14 | general security concerns for implementations. |
---|
15 | |
---|
16 | The Working Group has chosen Proposed Standard because this is a substantial |
---|
17 | revision of the text, compared to RFC2616. We anticipate moving to Internet |
---|
18 | Standard subsequently. |
---|
19 | |
---|
20 | Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed together: |
---|
21 | |
---|
22 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging |
---|
23 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics |
---|
24 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional |
---|
25 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range |
---|
26 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache |
---|
27 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth |
---|
28 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations |
---|
29 | * draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations |
---|
30 | |
---|
31 | |
---|
32 | 2. Review and Consensus |
---|
33 | |
---|
34 | As chartered, this work was very constrained; the WG sought only to clarify |
---|
35 | RFC2616, making significant technical changes only where there were |
---|
36 | considerably interoperability or security issues. |
---|
37 | |
---|
38 | While the bulk of the work was done by a core team of editors, it has been |
---|
39 | reviewed by a substantial number of implementers, and design issues enjoyed |
---|
40 | input from many of them. |
---|
41 | |
---|
42 | It has been through two Working Group Last Calls, with multiple reviewers each |
---|
43 | time. We have also discussed this work with external groups (e.g., the W3C TAG). |
---|
44 | |
---|
45 | We were not able to get consensus on text to add regarding Security |
---|
46 | Considerations for interception of unencrypted HTTP traffic. |
---|
47 | |
---|
48 | 3. Intellectual Property |
---|
49 | |
---|
50 | There are no IPR disclosures against this document. The authors have confirmed |
---|
51 | that they have no direct, personal knowledge of IPR related to this document |
---|
52 | that has not been disclosed. |
---|
53 | |
---|
54 | 4. Other Points |
---|
55 | |
---|
56 | Downward references: |
---|
57 | * RFC1950 |
---|
58 | * RFC1951 (already in downref registry) |
---|
59 | * RFC1952 |
---|
60 | * "Welch" |
---|
61 | |
---|
62 | New registries created: None. |
---|
63 | |
---|
64 | Updated registries: |
---|
65 | |
---|
66 | * The Transfer Encoding Registry policy is changed from First Come First Served |
---|
67 | to IETF Review, and registration procedures are now defined by this document. |
---|
68 | The policy was changed to assure adequate review. |
---|
69 | |
---|
70 | * The Upgrade Token Registry policy remains at First Come First Served, but |
---|
71 | registration procedures are now defined by this document. |
---|
72 | |
---|