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.
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.
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:
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.
One open Authentication technical issue: DOMAIN
0 open HTTP technical issues:
1 Closed HTTP editorial issue:
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
|a1||DOMAIN||Open||Domain attribute in digest auth has problems||Ronald||paulle|
|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|
|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||18.104.22.168 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||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.||jg|
|he34||ADAMS1||In Draft 06||Comments (Part 1) on HTTP I-D Rev 05||Responses to issues not separated.||gadams|
|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
|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 email@example.com