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 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard; this is an update to previous standards-track documents
(notably, RFC 7230). This status is indicated in the document and Datatracker.
(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 document represents a revision and consolidation of the original RFCs
produced by the HTTPbis working group, which defined HTTP in various documents
published in 2014. This document encapsulates the version-independent semantics
of HTTP, which is now more relevant to make clear after the advent of both
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. This document is a critical reference for the work on HTTP/3
to rely upon.
Working Group Summary & Document Quality:
The working group, led by the group of three editors, has poured a lot of time
and effort into ensuring that these core documents are produced with great
quality and clarity. This effort to revise the documents began in 2018, and
over the past three years, the working group has spent about half of its
meeting time discussing the ongoing work on these core documents. A detailed
list of all issues that were discussed can be found on the GitHub repo:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues.
While there were certainly manly points that required in-depth discussion,
through WGLC, the process was guided by consensus, which was usually not rough.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Tommy Pauly
Responsible Area Director: Francesca Palombini
(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.
I’ve reviewed this document as part of issuing the WGLC, and followed the
various comments/issues filed by the WG and discussed in our recent interim
meeting. I believe this document is quite ready to be forwarded, and is a truly
useful and well-written specification.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. This document has been the product of careful and in-depth by the
working group over several years, and went through a long last call.
(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 new reviews are needed here, in my opinion. This document isn’t introducing
any new behavior or architecture, but rather consolidating and clarifying
existing documents.
(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.
(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?
The editors have not indicated any IPR on this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR has been reported.
(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 consensus seems quite solid. During WGLC, we received in-depth reviews
from core participants, as well as many GitHub issues from WG participants.
From when WGLC started until now, we received 54 issues on the HTTP core
documents from people other than document editors.
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No such complaints have been expressed.
(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.
-(10750): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii
characters in UTF-8 encoding SHEPHERD: This is from a non-ASCII name, not a
problem
== There are 9 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the
document. == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant
IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
SHEPHERD: This seems to be an incorrect nit.
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC7230, but the
abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC7230
though, so this could be OK.
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC7615, but
the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC7538, but
the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC7694, but
the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.
SHEPHERD: These are incorrect nits.
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3864, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
SHEPHERD: This does sound like a valid nit.
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/829
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2145' is defined on line 9325, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7617' is defined on line 9470, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
SHEPHERD: These looks like valid nits.
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/830
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1950
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1951
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1952
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'USASCII'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Welch'
-- Duplicate reference: RFC2978, mentioned in 'Err5433', was also mentioned
in 'Err1912'.
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2068
(Obsoleted by RFC 2616)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2145
(Obsoleted by RFC 7230)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616
(Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2617
(Obsoleted by RFC 7235, RFC 7615, RFC 7616, RFC 7617)
-- Duplicate reference: RFC2978, mentioned in 'RFC2978', was also mentioned
in 'Err5433'.
SHEPHERD: These seem like items to clean up with AD review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document updates the reference for existing media type and URI
registrations, but does not create any new registrations.
(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?
These are highlighted by the nits checks:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1950
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1951
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1952
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'USASCII'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Welch'
I’ll leave these to AD guidance.
(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.
Please see (14) above.
(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.
Yes, this document changes the status of several documents, as is the intent of
this major update to the core HTTP specs. These are listed and explained in the
document.
Obsoletes: 2818, 7230, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7235, 7538, 7615, 7694
Updates: 3864
(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 8126).
The IANA requests for this document are primarily to move references in
existing tables to point to this document, along with a few minor updates for
correctness.
It does also create a new registry for HTTP Field Names, see below.
(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.
This document creates a new registry for HTTP Field Names. It would make sense
to have this document be managed like the existing HTTP registries for expert
selection, etc.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
This document uses ABNF rules, which have been validated.
(20) No YANG impact.