HTTP/1.1 Draft Standard Issues List (Before Last Call)

During implementaton of the HTTP/1.1 Proposed Standard, a number of issues were raised that needed to be addressed before the HTTP/1.1 is moved to Draft Standard (the next phase of the IETF standardization process). The issues were resolved in a number of different ways, depending upon the severity of the problem and how it interacted with IETF process. The following is a list of the issues raised before last call of the documents for draft standard, and the solutions.

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: BeforeLastCall.html,v 1.2 1998/05/19 21:48:12 jg Exp $

Issue Status

This is a list of issues. 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 HTTP/1.1 Proposed Standard (RFC 2068).

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 list below also needs to be organized into some sort of priority list. You can presume, though, that if an ID is associated with an issue, it is relatively important (but the lack of an ID does not mean that the issue is unimportant).

Links to Related Documents

Last call was issued on HTTP/1.1 Internet Draft (rev-03), dated March 13, 1998.

Last call was issued on HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication draft (Auth-01 issued March 13, 1998)

The No field contains an arbitrary number of the issue, which is guaranteed to change in the future (i.e. use the Name of the issue, not its number, in any discussions; it is for convenience during teleconferences.)

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 draft 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.

(Auth-1 issued March 13; 0 technical issues open for HTTP. )

0 Open Technical issues
2 Open Editorial issues:    XREFSCLEAN_INDEXES.

4 Authorization Technical issues closed since Auth-00: DIGEST-MESSAUTH-INFO-SYNTAX, DIGEST-PROBS, DIGEST-SCALING

3 Technical issues closed since Rev-02:  IF-PRECEDENCE, CONTENT-LENGTH, 409-CONFLICT


9 Technical issues closed since Rev-01:


Digest Authentication Issues
Short Description
Proposed Resolution
Raised By
A1 DIGEST-MESS In Auth-01 Digest authentication has a number of problems, but we gotta get passwords in the clear off the wire. Goal: no password in the clear; message integrity is gravy if possible, but not the meat. 
Larry and Paul to prepare draft from John's diffs.
fielding franks 
A2 DIGEST-SCALING Subsumed by DIGEST-MESS Can digest be used for cross server authentication? Eric 
In Auth-01 Authentication-Info lacking extension field Contained in description Ronald. 
A4 DIGEST-PROBS In Auth-01 Dave Krystol has found some problems Solution one problem dmk

In Auth-01

Proposal to add a new s-maxage directive to deal with overlooked cache case. (Mailing List discussion) Jeff issued new draft. mogul mogul
In Rev-02 
Not yet in Auth-01 
The indexes need cleanup. jg jg
A7 XREFS Open Make sure authentication draft cross references correct section in HTTP spec. Just do it! jg masinter 
Technical Issues
Short Description
Proposed Resolution
Raised By
-1 IF-PRECEDENCE In Rev-03 What is the right precedence between If headers? In message, though Roy's point about "undefined" is well taken. mogul mogul
0 409-CONFLICT Closed,  no  
action needed
What does 409 really do? Paul was confused; can't think of any better wording though. paulle mogul
In Rev-02 
In Rev-03
Confusion on Content-Length Reclassified from editorial. Resolution. Comments  fix in 03. john mogul
2 MULTIPART In Rev-02 Should the HTTP spec define interactions with multipart? Proxies should not be examining multipart for HTTP headers etc. Proposal from Roy jpalme fielding
Closed Should HTTP allow more than one Content-Location 
in the same message heading?
Too late to change HTTP/1.1; the MHTML group is looking at other Alternatives. jpalme
4 CONTENT-BASE In Rev-02 RFC2068 wording was not absolutely clear that Content-Base was required Deleted and notes as to why added to changes to RFC2068 section; also reference MHTML spec. lawrence
5 IPV6-ADDR-URLS Closed Proposals for URL syntax for IP/V6 addresses have problems Not HTTP's problem. mogul
In Rev-00 

In Rev-01 
and -02

There are problems in the Content-Encoding specification Proposed Resolution Comments, Koen. Solution is to add a note not to use ;q on x-gzip and x-compress. Also interacts with TRAILER_FIELDS. mogul frystyk
7 OPTIONS In Rev-01  Options insufficiently defined. Discussion has not converged on enhanced Options. Internet Draft with proposal. Undock and follow up in extensions working group. 
Rev-01 has minimal fix to base spec.
fielding mogul 
Draft was In Rev-00 
Removed in Rev-01 
Text to clarify 
305 in Rev01 and In Rev-02
Proxy redirect (305) is at least vague, but more likely broken.Working list discussion. 
Josh sent draft; draft required fancy OPTIONS proposal, and 306 has serious security problems.
305 should be limited to use by origin servers, to a single request, to a proxy. Working group opinion: set proxy functionality is important, but at this date we will undock it and proceed independently. Deprecate broken 305 interpretation more forcefully. josh josh, luotonen
9 RE 
In Rev-01 
Removed from Rev-02 
Security considerations in Rev-02.
Should there be a revalidate requested code?Comments from JG, many others.Updated proposal from Paul Leach.  This is believed to be a REAL PROBLEM, that needs to be fixed. Working group decision is that this issue should be undocked and dealt within new HTTP extensions group, and likely handle more than this solution does.  kdyer paulle
In Rev-01 Should range requests apply before or after content coding? Revised proposal; also involves TRAILER_FIELDS mogul frystyk
11 TRAILER_FIELDS In Rev-01 What fields can go into headers and/or trailers Should we introduce a mechanism for the client to say that it accepts trailers? Henrik's updated proposal.   frystyk
12 PUT-RANGE In Rev-01 
Removed from Rev-02.
Do Content-Range and PUT work together? Proposal out from Paul Leach. 
No consensus; removed.
strachan paulle
13 DIGEST_SYNTAX In Auth-00 Syntax errors in Digest specification cleanups. Ronald. 
In Auth-00 What should the protection space be for basic? Allow same or lower path. franks macrides
15 CONTRADICTION In Rev-01 PROXY-LENGTH change introduced an error. PROXY-LENGTH change introduced an error. Comments from Paul Leach (simpler proposal) adopted. koen  
In Rev-01 What to do if If-Modified-Since and etags INF doesn't match. Jeff supplied a fix. henrysa frystyk
In Rev-01 What happens when sending some invalid byteranges? Idea is not to be smart but to reply to what the client asked for   mogul
18 RE-VERSION In Rev-01 The assumption that the HTTP Version number is hop-by-hop may not be true in practice. Need stronger requirements on proxies. Clarification and words to close the issue. Still some comments and confusion. 
Henry Sanders to document the discussions at Munich and Washington.
josh josh
19 HOST In Rev-01 Where/when should the host part of a URL be interpreted if not fully qualified? Further discussion. Proxy can add but not change it if it is already there. dahming jg
Proceed as ID 
In Rev-01
Connect method needs documenting (used by SSL) Add reference to the document; editorial issue to document. luotonen frystyk
21 FORCE_PROXY Subsumed by PROXY-MAXAGE What happened to this? Forcing HTTP/1.1 proxies to revalidate responses.   editors  
22 NO_CLOCK In Rev-00 Draft from Scott Lawrence   editors  
23 301-302 In Rev-01 Problems with redirecting requests Active discussion on list. Consensus at Munich IETF seemed to be to swap the codes, rather than making the protocol cruftier. Was reverted after Munichto the following wordings and perform a last call yarong  
24 REDIRECTS In Rev-01 How many redirects should be allowed, required? Discussion open; Roy's response. 
yarong jg
25 LINK_HEADER In Rev-00 Conflict between HTML and HTTP regarding interpretation of Link header Delete the Link header from appendix; solved by editorial issue REMOVE_19.6    
26 CACHING-CGI In Rev-00, 
In Rev-01
Should we add a note explaining how CGI can be cached? Jeff's Mail with closure 
Roy's mail with dissent. 
Roy's position adopted
mogul mogul
27 WARNINGS In Rev-00 
Klause Weide 
In Rev-01
Problems with caching headers in Warnings Incorporate Internet Draft 
Klause Weide comments
Jeff updated fix.
luotonen mogul
In Rev-01 Date string used in the If-modified-since header. Proposed resolution. Should we put a note into a bug compatibility section? Adopt Koen's solution luotonen jg
29 403VS404 In Rev-01 Current wording says: Description for "404 Not found" says "403 Forbidden" can be used instead. As Ari Luotonen points out - this should be the other way round. Henrik's fix adopted luotonen frystyk
30 AGE 
In Rev-01 Conservative vs. Optimistic Age calculation, and clarification. Roy sent out an Internet Draft; Jeff also sent a draft in. Adopt Roy's draft, in preference to Jeff's; don't adopt Koen's further suggestion. (synchronized clock wording already present in 13.2.3) fielding jg / mogul
31 AUTH-CHUNKED In Rev-00 Chunked vs. Digest problem Fix. lawrence jg
32 REQUIRE-DIGEST In Auth-00 There needs to be some way to require that Digest authentication is used. ID has been issued The ID contains resolution; John Franks has comments. lawrence paulle
33 RETRY-AFTER In Rev-00 Should Retry-After apply to: 
- 3xx Redirect class responses 
- as well as 503 Service Unavailable
Bob believes it can apply to all 3xx responses, and that a minor change to clarify it can be sent is enough. briscoe jg
34 VARY In Rev-01 Vary is really cache advice. The description varies throughout the spec Henrik's fix frystyk frystyk / fielding
In Rev-00 When should Proxy-Authorization header be sent? Dave Kristol's suggested editorial clarification; but probably not needed as it is part of credentials. Clarification in section 11. Henrik'sfix dmk frystyk
36 PROXY-LENGTH In Rev-00 
In Auth-00
Proxies should be able to add Content Length. We need a group of headers which proxies can add but not modify. This is also the case for content-encoding dan paulle
37 LANGUAGE-TAG In Rev-00 Language tag matching needs to be added Resolution gjw masinter
38 TSPECIALS In Rev-00 Conflicting definitions of syntax production 'tspecials' in RFC 2045 and RFC 2068 Rename t-specials so that we avoid conflicts klyne  
39 STATUS100 In Rev-00 Message transmission requirements may need clarification. Resolution. rlgray mogul
40 QZERO In Rev-00 Quality = 0.0 should mean "not acceptable" Fold into 1.1 spec gjw koen
41 RANGE-ERROR In Rev-01 What should be the correct server response for a byte range that is outside the actual contents of the file? Add 416 error with content range showing the total content length. 
John Franks found problem; Jeff redrafted.
matt mogul
In Rev-00 Cache-Control: No-cache needs clarification. (Jeff's mail) This is question of clarifying - not changing contents and fix the BNF error abaird mogul
43 COMMENT In Rev-00 Quoting confusion Adopt Roy's clarification. ulrich masinter
In Rev-00 Content-Location needs minor clarification C-L may be useful in PUT and DELETE. Henrik's fix kweide frystyk
(duplicate of 
In Rev-00 Backslash within quotes Should be allowed but with a note in compatibility section (xref). Does this impact other headers as well? Comments stay the way the they are. Fix Ulrichl  
46 CACHE-CONTRA In Rev-00 Apparent contradiction between 14.8 and 14.9.4 Resolution plus Internet draft koen  
In Rev-00 Need to either define field-name or change grammar Solution abaird  
48 BYTE-RANGE In Rev-00 Is the right meta-data returned on range requests? Fix frystyk frystyk
49 LWS-DELIMITER In Rev-00 Implied LWS rule does not talk about LWS as delimiter between tokens, but as some 1.1 headers use LWS instead of tspecials as delimiters between tokens Fold into 1.1 spec. koen koen
50 CRLF In Rev-00 Is a CRLF in a quoted-string legal, and what is the relation to header continuation? Should be allowed but deserves a note in the backwards compatibility appendix saying that this may break existing implementations Kristol  
51 MAX-AGE In Rev-00 Max-age in responses not defined Additional Notes for inclusion in proposed resolution (Roy sez OK) fielding  
52 100DATE In Rev-00 Should Date be part of a 100/101 response? Fold into 1.1 spec. Adopt Lawrence's draft with changes from Jeff Mogul lawrence mogul
53 DISPOSITION In Rev-00 Should content-disposition from RFC 1806 be considered for HTTP? The same goes for content-description (a.k.a. Title). Add to Appendix masinter koen
54 CHUNKED In Rev-00 Chunked encoding clarification Editorial - clarify the wording rlgray jg
55 CACHING In Rev-00 Criticism of HTTP/1.1 caching and paper 13.1.1 needs editorial change. dingle jg
In Rev-00 Please clarify * is legal in HTTP1/1 Accept-Charset Header. Fold Internet Draft into 1.1 spec. ftang
58 PADDING In Rev-00 Should padding rules be loosened in chunked encoding? Fold into 1.1 spec. Leading 0's are OK. john lawrence
59 CONNECTION In Rev-00 Should spec be clarified around connection:Cache-Control? Jeff Mogul's suggested resolution urbani
60 RANGES In Rev-00 206 response should allow to range request without knowing total content length Fix frystyk frystyk
61 WARNING-8859 In Rev-00 Warnings, and the use of 8859 1522 has been obsoleted - reference 2047 mduerst jg
62 SHOULD-8859 In Rev-00 Charset confusion confusion Backwards compatibility appendix with collection of notes instead of throughout the spec misha jg
63 X-BYTERANGES In Rev-00 Need note about x-byteranges in spec. Worth a note in compatibility mode appendix akosut jg
In Rev-00 What are the nesting rules (e.g. chunk and compress) We need wording just like content-encoding, see section 14.12   jg
65 FIN-WAIT-2 Closed,  no  
action needed
Is there any problem in HTTP/1.1 causing fin-wait-2 problems, or is this strictly a implementation bug (client, server, or TCP stack)? Implementation bug. There are work arounds and it could be rolled into the connection draft? Roy has some notes on this fielding jg
66 304-LAST 
Closed,  no  
action needed
Should 304 include Last Modified? No change required frystyk  
Closed, no  
action needed
Currently the spec says that encoding is part of content negotiation. This is not the case as it is for the sender to determine. Leave it as is. mogul mogul
68 VERSION RFC 2145 What version number should HTTP/1.1 servers return? (Internet Draft) (Mailing list discussion) (more discussion) IESG action completed; See PROXY_FORWARD. Editorial note: reference added in Rev-00. jcma mogul
69 HIT-METER RFC 2227 Hit metering is RFC 2227 RFC 2227    
70 SAFE Move forward as experimental? Koen is reparing a RFC SAFE proposal not in charter No action to be taken; too much already on working group plate. macrides  
71 UAHINT Move forward as experimental? UAHINT proposal not in charter No action to be taken; too much already on working group plate. macrides  
Out of scope for HTTP/1.1 draft-harada-http-xconn-from-01 independent document.   mogul
73 COOKIE Out of scope for HTTP/1.1 Compatibility problem of RFC 2109 Draft should proceed independently. dmk  
74 PROXY-AUTH Out of scope for HTTP/1.1 Proposal of Josh Cohen to modify Proxy authentication. Reject proposal due to compatiblity problems. josh  
75 CLOSE Out of scope for HTTP/1.1 Who should close the connection? 
(Internet Draft) (Mailing List discussion)
Draft should proceed independently. briscoe jg
76 AGE Subsumed by AGE 
Should age be touched if a document is never resident in a cache? Internet draft      
Subsumed by CONTENT 
Confusion about accept-encoding language See also ENCODING-NOT-CONNEG koen  
Editorial Issues
Short Description
Proposed Resolution
Raised By
69 IDENTITY_TE In Rev-03 The "identity" transfer-coding is used only in the TE header, and SHOULD NOT be used in the Transfer-Encoding header. In message mogul mogul
70 IM_IUS_412 In Rev-03 Seek clarification on conditional hdrs In message dmk mogul
71 HEAD_WITH_IMS In Rev-03 Is it "legal" to send an 
If-Modified-Since header with a HEAD method?
In message mogul mogul
72 304-SHOULD In Rev-03 If-Modified can always be ignored by returning an entity. MUST becomes a SHOULD henrysa jg
73 PUT 
In Rev-03 The entity headers, in addition to the entity body, should be associated with the request URI for PUT. In message paulle paulle
74 LOCATION-PUT In Rev-03 How should Content-Location be interpreted with Put?  In message. paulle paulle
75 ETAG-CLARITY In Rev-03 Etag needs clarification In message. mogul mogul
76 204-UNCLEAR In Rev-03 Unclear about updating meta information In message. paulle paulle
In Rev-03 Dave has found some more... Jeff's response. dmk jg
78 KRISTOL-02 In Rev-03 Dave has done another read.... Caching dmk jg
79 EXPECTATION In Rev-02 Expectation MUST or SHOULD? In message. lawrence lawrence
Removed from Rev-03
Not clear that not-implemented error must be implemented. Comments Roy is right. lawrence lawrence
In Rev-02 Should be distinction for transparent proxies vs. non-transparent Roy drafted language lawrence fielding
82 CHARSET-NIT In Rev-02 Nit in Accept-Charset. Remove sentence howard jg
83 CASE-DATE In Rev-02 Case sensitive date format. Roy's original wording. fielding jg
84 TYPO-NITS In Rev-02 Spell check, look for dups, extra/missing characters, look at references. etc. Just do it. jg jg
85 WORD-LOSTIT Open Word lost my links to the issues list. May ignore this problem. jg jg
86 DS-INTERNIC In Rev-02 Hyperlinks to need fixing (to Just do it. jg jg
87 IDENTITY-TE Closed The "identity" transfer-coding is used only in the TE  header, and SHOULD NOT be used in the Transfer-Encoding header. Contained in report. Not accepted, except for the missing word in the report, as text already says this. mogul jg
88 LINE-LENGTH In Rev-02 Line length rules for MIME should be referenced. Reference MIME spec as warning to HTTP implem. that may share code with MHTML. Nick_Shelness jg
In Rev-02 MHTML and HTTP spec's differ for Content-Location. Also see MULTIPART. Several possible. Lets see the MULTIPART solution before deciding. Nick_Shelness jg
90 SEC-CACHING In Rev-02 Should be security/privacy considerations around caching.  Secure the system, MITM, trust. Will draft and forward to list. masinter jg
91 REORDER In Rev-02 Reorder sections of HTTP/1.1 Just do it.  Will be in Rev-02 jg jg
92 IN-THEORY In Rev-02 Normative SHOULD after "In theory" clause... Accept suggested correction. mogul jg
94 RONALD In Rev-02 Nits in 307, and examples in new materials. Accept suggested corrections  Ronald.Tschalaer jg
95 SEC-ORDER In Rev-02 Security Considerations section needs reordering to improve flow. Just do it. jg jg
96 PATTERSON In Rev-02 Editoral nits against rev-01. Fixes in this message, and this one. Ross_Patterson jg
In Rev-02 The Expect mechanism does not state whether token-matching should be case sensitive. Accept suggested correction. mogul jg
98 CHANGES-2068 In Rev-02 Process requires a changes from previous RFC section. Added by jg. Alvestrand, 
100 DISPOSITION In Rev-02 Content-Disposition could use some TLC Clarified that filename is the only part used, and removed ref. to content-octet-stream kweide jg
101 IANA 
In Rev-02 Will need section to help Postel's people out (e.g. transfer coding) Just do it! jg jg
104 CODE 
In Rev-01 

Removed from Rev-02

Document should refer to status code registry. refer to Schultzrinne, spec currently limits codes to 3 digits. 
No concensus on registry.
editors jg
Closed Should request-URI become Request-Target? Refused: Too sweeping a terminology change for this late date.  fielding
106 REQUIREMENTS Closed Need table of requirements like RFC 1122 and 1123; Jeff issued a more extensive example Sample was in Rev-00 Sample removed Rev-01  Volunteers haven't stepped forward. all jg
In Rev-01 The descriptions of Content-Length in rev-00 are slightly out of sync.   frystyk jg
In Rev-01 Nit in text of generic message Make text consistent with BNF deanj jg
109 UPDATE_ACKS In Rev-01  Acknowledgements need updating Any further ones please send mail! jg jg
110 RANGE 
In Rev-01 Jim Whitehead pointed out an inconsistancy between MAY and SHOULD in section 14.36.2; range requests are optional. SHOULD becomes should ejw jg
111 EBNF In Rev-01 The EBNF in draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-08.txt has been checked for formal syntax and context errors.   js jg
112 CODES In Rev-01 New response codes should be contiguous with old ones. make them so. jg jg
113 CLEANUP In Rev-01 Clean up Microsoft Word document to make generating HTML easier.   rbriscoe jg
114 UTF-8 In Rev-01 RFC for UTF-8 has issued. HTTP/1.1 should refer to rfc 2130, 
and to IETF policy draft-alvestrand-charset-policy-xx.txt
Need ref to policy statement.    jg
115 ENTITY Closed 
no action
Language around strong and weak validators talks about validators. No response from gjw asking for clarification. gjw jg
116 DOCKDIGEST In Rev-01 
In Auth-00 
Should we dock Digest authentication? 
Change section 2.1.3 that the AuthenticationInfo 
Header is allowed in the footer of a chunked encoded HTTP message.
Change to allow AuthenticationInfo Header in the footer of a chunked encoded HTTP message. Move basic into Digest and keep as separate document. masinter jg
117 URL-SYNTAX In Rev-01 Use the revised URL syntax draft rather than repeating this in HTTP. Make sure that this says the same thing as currently described in the HTTP spec. New spec has issued by Roy and Larry. masinter masinter 
118 1310_CACHE In Rev-01 Clarify section 13.10 and make requirements explicit Henrik's proposal 
Jeff's revision
frystyk frystyk
119 MESSAGE-BODY In Rev-00 
Comments from dwm 
In Rev-01
Clarify when message bodies are sent Dave Morris has had comments. 
Roy and Jeff's fix.
120 BNFNAME In Rev-00 BNF name is misleading.   dmk jg
121 ACCEPT-RANGES In Rev-00 Should Accept-Ranges be listed in section 6.2 as a response header? 
  phethmon jg
122 KEEP-ALIVE In Rev-00 Persist connection token referred to   tromly jg
123 KEYWORDS In Rev-00 Spec should use Bradner's terms, and ref. them.   jg jg
In Rev-00 Refer to the version rfc 2145 in HTTP/1.1 spec Reference to RFC 2145 should be folded into the spec. masinter jg
125 XREF In Rev-00 Nit in cross reference   conings jg
In Rev-00 Spec should probably reference RFC 2076, "common internet mail headers"   jg jg
127 NO-CACHE In Rev-00 We did not intend the "in that case"   abaird jg
128 FIX-REF In Rev-00 Fix reference to persistent connections work   touch jg
In Rev-00 Clarify distinction between origin and proxy server persistent connection requirements.   bertold jg
130 CONNECTION2 In Rev-00 Make implied connection requirement explicit.   mogul jg
131 GMT-UTC In Rev-00 GMT may not always be UTC Proposed resolution mogul mogul
132 PROXY 
In Rev-00 Clarify last sentence of 7.1 to say "MUST be forwarded by proxies"   jg jg
133 REFERER-SEC In Rev-00 Add some security considerations regarding Referer header field   koen jg
134 CHUNK-EXT In Rev-00 Add sentence about chunk-ext to section 3.6     jg
135 REMOVE_19.6 In Rev-00 
In Rev-01
The contents is historical at best and should be removed Various historical material now in RFC 2068 has been removed.   jg
136 IDEMPOTENT In Rev-00 9.1.2 Idempotent Methods is basically wrong Proposed resolution   mogul
137 REF-SIGCOMM In Rev-00 Reference upcoming Nielsen et. al. Sigcomm paper.     jg
138 1521-OBSOLETE In Rev-00 RFC 1521 has been obsoleted by 2045. Replace all references.   jg
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at

@(#) $Id: BeforeLastCall.html,v 1.2 1998/05/19 21:48:12 jg Exp $