1 | 1. Summary |
---|
2 | |
---|
3 | Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-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. This document |
---|
10 | defines HTTP/1.1 conditional requests, including metadata header fields for |
---|
11 | indicating state changes, request header fields for making preconditions on |
---|
12 | such state, and rules for constructing the responses to a conditional request |
---|
13 | when one or more preconditions evaluate to false. |
---|
14 | |
---|
15 | Note 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 | |
---|
27 | 2. Review and Consensus |
---|
28 | |
---|
29 | As chartered, this work was very constrained; the WG sought only to clarify |
---|
30 | RFC2616, making significant technical changes only where there were |
---|
31 | considerably interoperability or security issues. |
---|
32 | |
---|
33 | While the bulk of the work was done by a core team of editors, it has been |
---|
34 | reviewed by a substantial number of implementers, and design issues enjoyed |
---|
35 | input from many of them. |
---|
36 | |
---|
37 | It has been through two Working Group Last Calls, with multiple reviewers each |
---|
38 | time. We have also discussed this work with external groups (e.g., the W3C TAG). |
---|
39 | |
---|
40 | 3. Intellectual Property |
---|
41 | |
---|
42 | There are no IPR disclosures against this document. The authors have confirmed |
---|
43 | that they have no direct, personal knowledge of IPR related to this document |
---|
44 | that has not been disclosed. |
---|
45 | |
---|
46 | 4. Other Points |
---|
47 | |
---|
48 | Downward references: None. |
---|
49 | |
---|
50 | New registries created: None. |
---|
51 | |
---|
52 | Updated registries: None. |
---|
53 | |
---|