See also: IRC log
i8 - bad text in issue; already fixed in latest spec; closed
i13 - pivotal issue is whether BNF is self-contained; i.e., should we reference external specs, or copy BNF?
i19 - proposal is to change text as per mnot suggestion jan 15 + roy's modifications for intermediaries + warning in 4.3 that extending existing methods may be problematic
i20 - "Data in character sets other..." -- just for text/* types
i20 - subtype default overrides 8859-1
i21 - Combine to make second sentence dependent upon the first: "If the Request-URI does not point to an existing resource, and that URI is capable of being defined as a new resource by the requesting user agent, the origin server can create the resource with that URI. If a new resource is created, the origin server MUST inform the user agent via the 201 (Created) response. "
i23 - client can't invalidate; status quo. Need better documentation?
<Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2005JulSep/0009.html as input for i23
i24 - add sentence: This list MAY not be complete.
i24 - Fix in definition of Allow rather than 405. Also, there's a re-stated requirement in Allow header.
i25 - Accept proposal 1
i26 - dependent on RFC3986 status, refer vs. copy issue for references
i27 - loosen definition of Idempotency as per Roy
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to make a proposal for i28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action01]
<Yves> 2: If a Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 14.41) is present, then the transfer-length is defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6), unless the message is terminated by closing the connection.
<Yves> =>
<Yves> 2: If a Transfer-Encoding header field (Section 14.41) is present, and the "chunked" transfer-coding is used, then the transfer-length is defined by use of the "chunked" transfer-coding (Section 3.6)
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to implement i8 resolutino [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to drive discussion of whether we do references by value (copy or reference) on the list for i13 (and others) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: mnot to make rollup proposal for i19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: mnot to make proposal for i20 - make proposal for i20 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to make proposal for i21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: Henrik to drive discussion of how to better document the caching model for i23 (and others) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: mnot to make proposal for re-write of Allow header for i24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to implement i25 resolution (proposal 1) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to summarise Roy's proposal for i27 to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: Henrik to look at implementation concerns of i29 and report back [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action11]
i30 - #1. No, fix grammar. #2. No, no change. #3. No, security considerations? #4. Security considerations?
<scribe> ACTION: Henrik to summarise position on i30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action12]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to implement i31 Proposal 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action13]
i33: Not really a issue specific to the protocol
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to tell the list why i33 should be closed with no action [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action14]
<Yves> -> client side (browser) security model
i34: many interdependencies, lots of text talking about URIs
split issue into: a) BNF update (dependant on whether we inline or reference)
b) definition of the HTTP URI scheme
c) review other discussions of URIs in the spec
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to drive discussion of i34-derived issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action15]
<scribe> ACTION: Henrik to propose clarifying language for i37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action16]
<scribe> ACTION: Henrik to find and forward Roy's discussion of i38 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action17]
i36 - Put collected BNF in appendix.
scribe: fix current BNF so it parses.
... Use Bill Fenner's tools to transform.
... Look at reproducing # construct.
... THEN, evaluate LWS, other issues.
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to start doing BNF conversion for i36. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action18]
i39 - could just introduce a few sentences around variant and entity definitions, could add a whole new section (along the lines of JM's Clarifying the Fundamentals of HTTP).
i39 - look also at RFC3230
ACTION - mnot to make proposals around i39.
<scribe> ACTION: mnot to make proposals around i39. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action19]
i40: registration templates in header
definitions
... also record: header type, end/end or hop/hop, list or single, delmiter
for list?,
... question as whether they should be inlined
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to start working on i40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action20]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to incorporate proposal 1 from i46. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action21]
<Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0290.html
i51: separate productions for produce vs. consume ("obsolete date formats"), add BNF comments, and add explantory note to BNF section.
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to incorporate i51 resolution. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action22]
<scribe> ACTION: Julian to produce alpha sorted terminology list to see what it looks like [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action23]
<scribe> ACTION: mnot to float making 13.5.2 requirement apply to transparent proxies only, and adding Allow. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action24]
<scribe> NEW ISSUE: examine the relationship between the history stack and caching directives.
<scribe> NEW ISSUE: look at more explanation of the caching model (perhaps in a separate document)
<scribe> NEW ISSUE: header i18n
wrt header i18n, see 2231
scribe: and IRI->URI, and 2047
<scribe> NEW ISSUE: Pipelining - what to do with so many broken implementations