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 | |
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 |