An incorrect version of the new Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
(httpbis) working group charter was sent to the Secretariat and posted
on 19 March 2012. This version correctly reflects what the IESG
approved.
For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the
working group Chairs.
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
-----------------------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2012-04-13
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Applications Area Director(s):
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Applications Area Advisor:
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To Subscribe: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/
Description of Working Group:
This Working Group is charged with maintaining and developing
the "core" specifications for HTTP.
The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document (or set of documents) that is suitable to supersede RFC
2616 (HTTP/1.1) and move RFC 2817 to Historic status
* A document cataloguing the security properties of HTTP/1.1
* A document that specifies HTTP/2.0, an improved binding of HTTP's semantics
to an underlying transport.
HTTP/1.1
--------
HTTP is one of the most successful and widely-used protocols on the
Internet today. However, its specification has several editorial issues.
Additionally, after years of implementation and extension, several
ambiguities have become evident, impairing interoperability and the
ability to easily implement and use HTTP.
The working group will refine RFC2616 to:
* Incorporate errata and updates (e.g., references, IANA registries,
ABNF)
* Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
specification
* Clarify conformance requirements
* Remove known ambiguities where they affect interoperability
* Clarify existing methods of extensibility
* Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and
also unduly affect interoperability
* Where necessary, add implementation advice
* Document the security properties of HTTP and its associated mechanisms
(e.g., Basic and Digest authentication, cookies, TLS) for common
applications
It will also incorporate the generic authentication framework from RFC
2617, without obsoleting or updating that specification's definition of
the Basic and Digest schemes.
Finally, it will incorporate relevant portions of RFC 2817 (in
particular, the CONNECT method and advice on the use of Upgrade), so
that that specification can be moved to Historic status.
In doing so, it should consider:
* Implementer experience
* Demonstrated use of HTTP
* Impact on existing implementations and deployments
HTTP/2.0
--------
There is emerging implementation experience and interest in a protocol that
retains the semantics of HTTP, without the legacy of HTTP/1.x message framing
and syntax, which have been identified as hampering performance and encouraging
misuse of the underlying transport.
As such, there is an opportunity to create a new major
(non-wire-compatible) version of HTTP.
To do this, the Working Group will solicit candidates for this work from
the community, to be submitted as Internet-Drafts. Expected focus areas
for candidates include:
* Significantly improved perceived performance in common use cases
(e.g., browsers, mobile)
* More efficient use of network resources; in particular, reducing the
need to use multiple TCP connections
* Ability to be deployed on today's Internet, using IPv4 and IPv6, in the
presence of NATs
* Maintaining HTTP's ease of deployment
* Reflecting modern security requirements and practices
With regard to security requirements, in the initial phase of work on
HTTP/2.0, new proposals for authentication schemes can be made. The WG
will have a a goal of choosing at least one scheme that is better than
those available for HTTP/1.x. However, the WG might select zero schemes.
In addition, non-selected schemes might be discussed with the IETF
Security Area for further work there.
Although proposals are not required to meet all of these goals, it is
expected that the resulting work (if undertaken) will be chartered to
meet them (and therefore, selecting one that meets the majority of them
as a starting point is in everyone's interest).
The Working Group will then select a starting point for the new work
based upon the following criteria:
* Compatibility with HTTP/1.1 semantics; i.e., it must be possible to
pass through a HTTP/1.1 message with reasonable fidelity
* Broad implementer interest (e.g., from Web browsers, "back-end"
or "web api" uses of HTTP, servers, intermediaries, CDNs, etc.)
Changes to the existing semantics of HTTP are out of scope in order to
preserve the meaning of messages that might cross a 1.1 --> 2.0 --> 1.1
request chain. However, the resulting effort may define new semantics to
further the goals above, along with suitable extensibility mechanisms
for defining additional semantics.
If the Working Group forms consensus around a proposal to use as a
starting point, it is expected it will re-charter to begin work on that
document (or set of documents). The resulting work will be known as
"HTTP/2.0", unless the Working Group determines that this isn't suitable
(e.g., for interoperability).
Although work on this new version will begin in parallel with completion
of work on HTTP/1.1, the Working Group will prioritize HTTP/1.1 work
until it is complete.
Goals and Milestones:
Done First HTTP/1.1 Revision Internet Draft
Done First HTTP Security Properties Internet Draft
Mar 2012 Working Group Last Call for HTTP/1.1 Revision
Mar 2012 Call for Proposals for HTTP/2.0
Jun 2012 Working Group Last Call for HTTP Security Properties
Jul 2012 Submit HTTP/1.1 Revision to IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard
Jul 2012 Submit HTTP Security Properties to IESG for consideration as
Informational RFC
Aug 2012 Re-charter to work on HTTP/2.0
