Skip to main content

Structured Field Values for HTTP
draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis-05

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tpauly@apple.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Structured Field Values for HTTP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Structured Field Values for HTTP'
  (draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the HTTP Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a set of data types and associated algorithms
   that are intended to make it easier and safer to define and handle
   HTTP header and trailer fields, known as "Structured Fields",
   "Structured Headers", or "Structured Trailers".  It is intended for
   use by specifications of new HTTP fields that wish to use a common
   syntax that is more restrictive than traditional HTTP field values.

   This document obsoletes RFC 8941.

Working Group Summary

This document is a -bis of RFC 8941. This revision was started based on
consensus to add a Date type and update the style of the document. Partway
through, we had an additional scope increase to include "Display strings"
to go beyond ASCII. This took a while to reach consensus, but overall we ended
up at a place of strong consensus and involvement from a large number of WG
members.
The inclusion of Display Strings in the document was a controversial point (some
WG members felt strongly it needed to be added, and one author was strongly against),
but the WG ultimately came to the consensus to add support.
No appeals or extreme discontent was indicated.

Document Quality

There are implementations of the document; most of this is the same as the original
RFC, with two new types added.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Tommy Pauly. The Responsible
   Area Director is Francesca Palombini.

RFC Editor Note