HTTP/1.1 Draft Standard Issues List (IESG Last Call Requested) (original) (raw)

IETF

W3CHTTP

IESG last call of the specifications occurred in September 1998. The issues here all relate to issues raised during and after the IESG last call period.

For HTTP-WG use only

Note: this list is an internal working document of the IETF HTTP-WG. Please do not distribute, publish, or quote.

@(#) Id:Overview.html,v1.2421999/11/2410:39:38yvesExpId: Overview.html,v 1.242 1999/11/24 10:39:38 yves Exp Id:Overview.html,v1.2421999/11/2410:39:38yvesExp

Issue Status

This is a list of issues raised since last call in the working group. If you think the summary is wrong in any of these instances, please send mail to Jim Gettys, or, if you really think you have a new issue, please send mail to the http working group.

The comments are based on the Revision 4 of the HTTP/1.1 specification, and Auth-02 of HTTP Authentication.

When referring to issues on the list, it helps the editor if you put the issue name into the subject line of any mail messages.

HTTP/1.1 Internet Draft (rev-06), dated November 18, 1998.

HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication draft (Auth-03 issued September 11, 1998)

The Name field contains the name of the issue; and there are hypertext anchors present in this document of these names for each issue, to aid in cross referencing. We generally don't change the name or delete it once an issue has been opened.

The Short Description field contains a short description of the issue, often hyperlinked to a longer explanation of the issue.

The Status field can have the following values:

  1. Open- the issue has been acknowledged to be a problem, but no definate solution proposed
  2. Drafting- a solution is being drafted, and discussion is continuing in the mailing list
  3. Ready for last call - a proposed resolution has been circulated, but the last call not yet issued
  4. Last Call Issued- a last call for comments has been issued by the working group chair (Larry Masinter)
  5. Closed - the issue is believed to be closed by the proposed resolution, and will be incorporated into the draft
  6. **Closed, no action needed -**the issue is believed to be closed by the proposed resolution, and no action is needed.
  7. In Rev XX - the closed issue has been edited and (will) appear(s) in draft XX of the specification (maybe with caveats).
  8. Out of scope - this issue will not be addressed in the HTTP/1.1 specifications
  9. Editorial- the issue does not involve technical problems with the specifications (beyond minor clarification)
  10. **RFC 2XXX -**The issue has been dealt with independently of the HTTP/1.1 specification in the named document.
  11. Subsumed By - the issue has been subsumed by a different issue (sometimes when disentangling an issue into its component issues, you find other issues that really are a symptom of a problem originally thought to be different) The Proposed Resolution field has a synopsis of the proposed resolution, usually with a hyperlink to a longer message detailing the changes to the specification proposed.

The Raised By field contains a mailto: link to the name of the person who raised the issue initially.

The Resp. field contains a mailto: link to the name of the person responsible for drafting language to fix the issue, or responsible to see that action on the issue occurs.

Summary Of Issues in HTTP/1.1 and Authentication specifications.

One open Authentication technical issue: DOMAIN

0 open HTTP technical issues:

1 Closed HTTP editorial issue:

PUTREDIR

0 open HTTP editorial issues:

43 Closed HTTP editorial issues:

ROSS01, ROSS02, ROSS03, ROSS04 , ROSS05, ROSS06, ROSS07, ROSS08, ROSS09, ROSS10, ROSS11, ROSS12, ROSS13, ROSS14, ROSS15, ROSS16, ROSS17, ROSS18, ROSS19, ROSS20, ROSS21, ROSS22, ROSS23, ROSS24, LASTM, DMKULTRA, REF2183, FORUSE, TESWITCH, PROXYAUTH, WARNVAL, IMPLIEDLWS, ADAMS1, ADAMS2, ADAMS3, ADAMS28, ADAMS31, ADAMS41, ADAMS60, ADAMS84, ADAMS84b, ADAMS88, MORIGIN

Authentication Technical Issues

No Name Status Short Description Proposed Resolution Raised By Resp.
a1 DOMAIN Open Domain attribute in digest auth has problems Ronald paulle

Authentication Editorial Issues

No Name Status Short Description Proposed Resolution Raised By Resp.
ae1

HTTP Technical Issues

No Name Status Short Description Proposed Resolution Raised By Resp.
h1 PUTREDIR In Draft 06 Section 8.2.4 says that we MUST return an "error status" if we don't return a 100. Replace "error status" with "final status code" throughout section 8.2.4. fielding jg

HTTP Editorial Issues

No Name Status Short Description Proposed Resolution Raised By Resp.
he1 ROSS01 Closed; no action needed General Notes: Required and Optional keywords are new. Spec is correct as is; followes RFC 2119 usage. rossp jg
he2 ROSS02 In Draft 06 3.11 Entity Tags: confusion Minor rewrite rossp jg
he3 ROSS03 In Draft 06 4.1 General Syntax: restatement uses normative text already used. Lower case should rossp jg
he4 ROSS04 In Draft 06 4.2 Message Headers: common form isn't well defined SHOULD to ought to rossp jg
he5 ROSS05 Closed; no action needed 4.2 Message Headers: combining fields requirement Yes, you really can't do that... rossp jg
he6 ROSS06 In Draft 06 4.4 Message Length: MUST NOT caps Put "MUST NOT" in quotes. rossp jg
he7 ROSS07 In Draft 06 4.4 Message Length: when to use Content-Length is slightly confusing. Use Jeff's suggestion. rossp jg
he8 ROSS08 In Draft 06 8.1.2 Overall Operation: MUST not should be MUST NOT Capitalize the NOT rossp jg
he9 ROSS09 Closed; no action needed 8.2.1.2 Negotiation: MAY should be may No, leave as is. rossp jg
he10 ROSS10 In Draft 06 10.3.5 Not Modified: requirement is duplicated Yup. Fix. rossp jg
he11 ROSS11 In Draft 06 10.3.7 307 Temporary Redirect: requirement is duplicated Minor rewrite. rossp jg
he12 ROSS12 In Draft 06 10.4.8 407 Proxy Authentication Required: Yup. Fix. rossp jg
he13 ROSS13 In Draft 06 11 Access Authentication: MAY to can. rossp jg
he14 ROSS14 In Draft 06 14.20.1 Expect: duplicated requirement Replace one with cross reference to other section. rossp jg
he15 ROSS15 In Draft 06 14.23 Host: Use Roy's final version rossp jg
he16 ROSS16 In Draft 06 14.26 If-None-Match Henrik's solution is better. rossp jg
he17 ROSS17 Closed; no action needed 14.36 Referer: SHOULD or MUST be relative to the Request-URI. Optional in the first place. rossp jg
he18 ROSS18 In Draft 06 14.46: Warning: not really a requirement stated Lower Case the requirement. rossp jg
he19 ROSS19 In Draft 06 19.4.1 MIME-Version: cross reference to the same section Cross reference not needed. rossp jg
he20 ROSS20 In Draft 06 13.1.2 Warnings: MUST or MUST NOT be removed. Exposed duplication of text; replacement with Jeff's comment. rossp jg
he21 ROSS21 In Draft 06 13.3.3 Weak and Strong Validators: requirement stated twice Not quite the same. Adopt Jeff's clarification. rossp jg
he22 ROSS22 In Draft 06 13.4 Response Cachability: no requirement actually stated here Lower case the words. rossp jg
he23 ROSS23 Closed; no action needed 13.5.2 Non-modifiable Headers: non-transparent proxies and transformations Correct as is. rossp jg
he24 ROSS24 In Draft 06 13.12 Cache Replacement: reference implies weakening of requirements. Rewrite sentence. rossp jg
he25 LASTM In Draft 06 Is it Last-modified or Last-Modified? Last-Modified throughout. mathews jg
he26 DMKULTRA In Draft 06 You just *knew* you would hear from me, didn't you!? Yes, I did... Inevitable... dmk jg
he27 REF2183 In Draft 06 Should reference RFC 2183 Add a reference to RFC 2183 koen jg
he29 FORUSE In Draft 06 Section 9.9: "for use" appears twice Remove one occurance. martin jg
he30 TESWITCH In Draft 06 14.40 TE: chunked should be trailers Delete left over sentence. ronald jg
he31 AUTH VSPROXY In Draft 06 14.33: Proxy-Authentication BNF slightly wrong. Fix per mail. ronald jg
he32 WARNVAL In Draft 06 200 Level warnings in revalidation Adopt Jeff's clarification. cdipierr jg
he33 IMPLIEDLWS In Draft 06 question about implied LWS Adopt Paul's later simplification. paulle jg
he34 ADAMS1 In Draft 06 Comments (Part 1) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 Responses to issues not separated. gadams jg
he35 ADAMS2 In Draft 06 Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 Responses to issues not separated. gadams jg
he36 ADAMS3 In Draft 06 Comments (Part 3) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 Resolution of 116, 134, 135, 138, 147 and 149; other items gadams jg
he37 ADAMS28 In Draft 06 Semantic relaxation allowed? Redundancy detected. gadams jg
h338 ADAMS31 Closed; no action needed Consistency in method caching specification? At this date, it looks best to leave things alone. gadams jg
he39 ADAMS41 In Draft 06 Do clients have to always relink? Relinking all the time not our intent. gadams jg
he40 ADAMS60 Closed; no action needed Warnings and charsets gadams jg
he40 ADAMS84 Closed; no action needed Accept-Charset is confusing. It is intentional, due to existing practice. gadams jg
he41 ADAMS84b Closed; no action needed Accept-Charset and 406 It is intentional. gadams jg
he42 ADAMS88 Closed; no action needed Accept-Language does not have 406 clause. It is intentional. gadams jg
he43 MORIGIN In Draft 06 5.1.1: Should be origin server where server is written. Resolution in message fielding jg

The following issues (all resolved before IESG last call was issued) have been moved to a separate page to keep them clearly separate from items raised during IESG last call.

AUTH-PARAM, CHALLENGE-ORDER, DIGEST-URI, SNOOPED,REQUEST-DIGEST, CNONCE, NONCE-ETAG, DIGEST-MULTIPART, CHALLENGE-ORDER, AUTHVSPROXY, PROTECTION-SPACE, PROXY-AUTH, DMKAUTHNITS, COPYRIGHT, XREFS,CLEAN_INDEXES, PROXY-MAXAGE-TYPO, AUTHORS, REFERENCES, INTERNIC, MMS, EXPECT, TRANSFORMATIONS, CHUNKEDTRAILERS, TE-IDENTITY, PROXY-DNS, ERRORS, WARN-GEN, RANGEDELIM, IEBUG, MISTAKES, VERSION, EXPECT, CREATE, BENNETT, REFERENCES, NOTES,MMSCHECKTENIT, MISTAKES, DEPOSIT, ADVANTAGE, CONT, FLATTINNITS, TOKENS, INTERNIC,DMKNITS, LARRYENG, UNRECOGNISED, TSCHALAER, DATEWRONG, BNFNIT,REDIR, COPYRIGHT, WARN-GEN, TPROXY, PERSIST, 302FOUND,202CAPS, 409CONFLICT, ARTG,RANGECONTRA, DMKNIT, RULE, POSTNIT, REVALIDATION, PROXY-MAXAGE-TYPO, AUTHORS, CHANGES

If you have comments or suggestions, email me at jg@w3.org

@(#) Id:Overview.html,v1.2421999/11/2410:39:38yvesExpId: Overview.html,v 1.242 1999/11/24 10:39:38 yves Exp Id:Overview.html,v1.2421999/11/2410:39:38yvesExp