RFC 2616 bis Draft Overview IETF 72 Dublin

RFC 2616 bis Draft Overview IETF 72, Dublin Julian Reschke <julian. reschke@greenbytes. de> Mailing List: <mailto: ietf-http-wg@w 3. org> Jabber: httpbis@jabber. ietf. org httpbis IETF 72 1

How To Track Us • All issues are in Trac – new issues discussed on mailing list – design issues opened by chair • Drafts, including latest edits, are in Subversion – Checkins linked to issues • Diffs on tools. ietf. org and http: //svn. tools. ietf. org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietfhttpbis/diffs/ • Each draft enumerates non-editorial changes in an appendix httpbis IETF 72 2

Draft History (1/2) • 00 (December 2007) – partitioned RFC 2616 • 01 (January 2008) – changes from original errata list applied • 02 (February 2008) – some work on BNF fixes, make each document have a complete BNF – clarified requirements on PUT/201/Location – IANA media type registrations updated httpbis IETF 72 3

Draft History (2/2) • 03 (June 2008) – – BNF: clarify HTTP-date (what to send, what to expect) BNF: fix quoted-pair IANA: header registrations, status code registry Clarifications: Allow header, status 303 (“see other”), PUT, charset quoting, Accept-Encoding qvalue default – Deprecate status 305 (“use proxy”) – Make weak ETags more useful for methods != GET • „latest“ (July 2008) – Clarification on message length/connection closing, OPTIONS request bodies – HTTP Method Registry httpbis IETF 72 4

IANA: header registrations • Message Header registrations (according to RFC 3864) have been added (draft 03) • Question: should we include additional information, such as: – general header vs request vs response vs entity – list syntax allowed – I 18 N (does RFC 2047 apply? ) – And if we do so, do we also want to modify the registration process? httpbis IETF 72 5

Updating References • Mostly done • Some downrefs for compression specs (RFC 1950. . 1952), see issue 68 • References to historic URI documents still in, expected to go away when we update to RFC 3986, which in turn currently depends on BNF-to-ABNF conversion httpbis IETF 72 6

IANA: Status Code Registry • Previously defined in RFC 2817, now in Part 2 (as of draft 03) • Basically keeps the registration requirements, but rephrases them according to RFC 5226 • <http: //tools. ietf. org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p 2 semantics-03#section-5. 1> httpbis IETF 72 7

IANA: Method Registry • New Registry • In unpublished draft of Part 2 – http: //svn. tools. ietf. org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p 2 semantics. html • Registration requirements – – identical to Status Codes „IETF Review“ for new registrations MUST state safeness more required fields? • Register methods not defined in HTTP/1. 1 in a separate draft – work in progress – see http: //svn. tools. ietf. org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis-method -registrations/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations. html httpbis IETF 72 8

From 2616 -BNF to ABNF • Not as simple as it seems • Need consensus how to deal with TEXT production, which in theory allows RFC 2047 based encoding • Need consensus how to deal with Linear White Space and the List Production – Clarify what RFC 2616 really says, vs. what is being implemented • Status – – – Fixed simple errors (broken prose rules, name collisions) Removed most prose productions Started using RFC 5234 core rules Expanded case-sensitive string constants to octet sequences BNF, still in RFC 2616 format, can be parsed by modified version of Bill Fenner’s parser – Tools extract BNF and track the changes httpbis IETF 72 9

I 18 N • TEXT production in theory allows RFC 2047 based encoding • Observations: – I 18 N seems to be irrelevant for most of the headers in RFC 2616 – Exception: Content-Disposition (which already has its own escaping rules) – New specs work around the issue (for instance, Slug header in Atom. Pub (RFC 5023)) httpbis IETF 72 10