Skip to main content

Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data
draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-07-09
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-07-02
11 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-06-01
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-05-20
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-04-17
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-04-16
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-04-15
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-04-14
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-04-14
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-04-14
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-04-13
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-04-13
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-04-13
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-04-13
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-04-13
11 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-04-10
11 Larry Masinter IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-04-10
11 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-11.txt
2015-04-09
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2015-04-09
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-04-09
10 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-04-08
10 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-04-08
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-04-08
10 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-10.txt
2015-04-08
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-04-08
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

- abstract: the "(re)defines" is a bit confusing, I'd say just
stick with "defines"

- 4.3, typo "may seems to be present"
2015-04-08
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-04-08
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding the form-data parameter to the registration update.

I concur with Kathleen's comment to move the last paragraph in the security …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding the form-data parameter to the registration update.

I concur with Kathleen's comment to move the last paragraph in the security considerations to the front.
2015-04-08
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-04-08
09 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-04-08
09 Larry Masinter IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-04-08
09 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-09.txt
2015-04-07
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-04-07
08 Barry Leiba Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-04-07
08 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-04-07
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-04-06
08 Ben Campbell
[Ballot discuss]
Hopefully this will be easy to resolve:

Roni Even pointed out in his Gen-ART review that the IANA considerations section seems to have …
[Ballot discuss]
Hopefully this will be easy to resolve:

Roni Even pointed out in his Gen-ART review that the IANA considerations section seems to have omitted the content-disposition value of "form-data", which also currently points to 2388. I suspect this is an oversight, since "name" is included.

If, on the other hand, the omission was intentional, let me know and I will clear.
2015-04-06
08 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
In the abstract, I suggest changing "... replaces RFC 2388" to "obsoletes RFC 2388", just to get the right magic words …
[Ballot comment]
In the abstract, I suggest changing "... replaces RFC 2388" to "obsoletes RFC 2388", just to get the right magic words in place.

I concur with Kathleen's comment to move the last paragraph in the security considerations to the front.
2015-04-06
08 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-04-06
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-06
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-04-06
08 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Please consider moving the last paragraph to the first in the security considerations section.  I agree with the point made by the SecDir …
[Ballot comment]
Please consider moving the last paragraph to the first in the security considerations section.  I agree with the point made by the SecDir reviewer that it improves readability and makes this point clear with reasons before subsequent paragraphs detail it a bit more specifically.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05555.html

I also agree with the SecDir reviewer and suggest you reword the following paragraph in Appendix B:
  More problematic is the ambiguity introduced because implementations
  did not follow [RFC2388] because it used "may" instead of "MUST" when
  specifying encoding of field names, and for other unknown reasons, so
  now, parsers need to be more complex for fuzzy matching against the
  possible outputs of various encoding methods.

Perhaps to something like:

  More problematic is the ambiguity introduced because implementations
  of [RFC2388] opted to not follow the specification of encoding field names when the term "may" appeared, where in hindsight it should have been "MUST". As a result,
  parsers need to be more complex for fuzzy matching against the
  possible outputs of various encoding methods.

If I go something wrong, hopefully you get the point and can easily adjust the text.

From the SecDir review:
Please correct me if I'm off base here, but it sounds like the ambiguity
set in because implementations WERE following RFC 2388 by making
choices on their own (due to the "may"s) rather than being directed to
make uniform choices which would have been mandated if that RFC had used
"MUST"s.

Thanks for your work on this draft!
2015-04-06
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-06
08 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-04-06
08 Barry Leiba Ballot has been issued
2015-04-06
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-04-06
08 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2015-04-06
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-04-05
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-04-05
08 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the multipart subregistry of the Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the existing registration for:

form-data

will have its template changed to the contents of Section 8 of the current document and the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Content Disposition Parameters subregistry of the Content Disposition Values and Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/cont-disp/

the existing registration for:

name

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-04-02
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2015-03-28
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bert Wijnen.
2015-03-21
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen
2015-03-21
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen
2015-03-19
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2015-03-19
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2015-03-19
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2015-03-19
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2015-03-16
08 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-03-16
08 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Returning Values from Forms: multipart/form-data'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This specification (re)defines the multipart/form-data Internet Media
  Type, which can be used by a wide variety of applications and
  transported by a wide variety of protocols as a way of returning a
  set of values as the result of a user filling out a form.  It
  replaces RFC 2388.

NOTE:
  There is a GitHub repository for this draft at
       
  The repository includes an issue tracker and a start on a test
  framework.  It might be helpful to consult the repository when
  reviewing the draft.


The draft file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data/

Once IESG discussion begins, it can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
2015-03-16
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Notification list changed to draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data@ietf.org, Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data.ad@ietf.org, appsawg-chairs@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org from Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com, appsawg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data.all@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Last call was requested
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Ballot approval text was generated
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was changed
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2015-03-16
08 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was generated
2015-03-09
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-03-09
08 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-08.txt
2015-02-06
07 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2014-12-16
07 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2014-12-16
07 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was changed
2014-12-16
07 Barry Leiba IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-12-16
07 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was generated
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document update rfc 2388 (if approved) 

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:


Technical Summary:
  This specification (re)defines the multipart/form-data Internet Media Type,
  defining a general syntax and semantics independent of the application
  for which this type is used, with specific rules for web applications noted in context.


Working Group Summary:
  There as been extremely low energy in the wg on this draft.
  The document has received only a couple of comments and feedback when
  has been initially submitted, but then only the author has been active to
  update and generating new versions of the draft based  on comments he has mainly
  received externally from people active in W3C and/or WHATWG.
  The wg last call has generated an acceptable amount of mail discussions that have
  produced as result the present version of the document.


Document Quality:
The document is thought ready to publish.
At present to my knowledge (I have also checked with the author) there is no implementation
of this proposal, neither known plan from vendors to implement it.


Personnel:
  Salvatore Loreto is the Document Shepherd
  Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    The document was reviewed against related documents and is thought ready
    to proceed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

    No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

    No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

    No

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

    Larry Masinter - Confirmed

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    None known.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

    The wg has express its consensus on adopting this document as wg item.
    A WGLC issued by the wg chairs on 16th September 2014, ended
    with  reviews that resulted in an updated document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

    No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
    recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
    keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    None

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

    Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

    OK

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

    No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

    The document will obsoleted and replace RFC 2388 as listed in the abstract
    and in the rest of the document.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA consideration have been reviewed by the shepherd and are consistent.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    None

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

    None

2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy State Change Notice email list changed to Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com, appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2014-12-15
07 Murray Kucherawy Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-12-15
07 Salvatore Loreto Changed document writeup
2014-12-02
07 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-07.txt
2014-11-23
06 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-06.txt
2014-10-13
05 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-05.txt
2014-10-12
04 Murray Kucherawy Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2014-10-12
04 Murray Kucherawy IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2014-09-16
04 Murray Kucherawy Working Group Last Call ends October 3, 2014.
2014-09-16
04 Murray Kucherawy IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-08-24
04 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-04.txt
2014-04-28
03 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-03.txt
2014-04-14
02 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-02.txt
2014-02-14
01 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-01.txt
2013-11-23
00 Murray Kucherawy Document shepherd changed to Salvatore Loreto
2013-10-01
00 Larry Masinter New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-multipart-form-data-00.txt