source: wg_materials/shepherd_writeups/p2-semantics.txt @ 2422

Last change on this file since 2422 was 2422, checked in by mnot@…, 7 years ago

add initial shepherd writeups

File size: 2.4 KB
Line 
11. Summary
2
3Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
4Document Shepherd: Mark Nottingham
5Responsible Area Director: Barry Lieba
6Publication Type: Proposed Standard
7
8The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for
9distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document
10defines the semantics of HTTP/1.1 messages, as expressed by request methods,
11request header fields, response status codes, and response header fields, along
12with the payload of messages (metadata and body content) and mechanisms for
13content negotiation.
14
15Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed together:
16
17* draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging
18* draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics
19* draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
20* draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range
21* draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
22* draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth
23* draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations
24* draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations
25
26
272. Review and Consensus
28
29As chartered, this work was very constrained; the WG sought only to clarify
30RFC2616, making significant technical changes only where there were
31considerably interoperability or security issues.
32
33While the bulk of the work was done by a core team of editors, it has been
34reviewed by a substantial number of implementers, and design issues enjoyed
35input from many of them.
36
37It has been through two Working Group Last Calls, with multiple reviewers each
38time. We have also discussed this work with external groups (e.g., the W3C TAG).
39
403. Intellectual Property
41
42There are no IPR disclosures against this document. The authors have confirmed
43that they have no direct, personal knowledge of IPR related to this document
44that has not been disclosed.
45
464. Other Points
47
48Downward references:
49* RFC1950
50* RFC1951 (already in downref registry)
51* RFC1952
52* "Welch"
53
54New registries created:
55
56* HTTP Method registry. IETF Review is required to assure that registrations
57  are appropriate, as HTTP methods are purposefully constrained.
58 
59Updated registries:
60
61* HTTP Status Code registry policy remains at IETF Review, and the registration
62  procedures are now defined by this document.
63
64* The Content Coding Registry policy is changed from First Come First Served to
65  IETF Review, and registration procedures are now defined by this document.
66  the policy was changed to assure adequate review.
67
68There is also an informational reference to RFC1305, which has been obsoleted
69by RFC5905. This will be addressed in an update.
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.