IETF101: 20 March 2018 HTTP WG Meeting Minutes

Scribe: Bron Gondwana

Active Drafts

BCP56bis: revision of use of HTTP as a substrate

Bootstrapping Websockets

QUESTION to the room: does anyone have any problems with modifying CONNECT? Nope.

Random access and live content - Craig Pratt (remote)

New standard went out last night - not significantly different to previous, mostly editorial.

Q: what's left before last call? * thanks for rattling cages - got feedback. * expected changes in shift buffers - and that's where they happened * one question out there: will answer on mailing list, has clear answer * don't expect to add anything to the draft - Martin - suggest: WGLC now - lots of people have paid attention to it - Mark: 2 weeks should be fine * from Jabber: - Tom Peterson - see question on mailing list about 416 - answer: while server may internally use circular buffer to represent shift buffer, shouldn't be a concept of resetting. - can't internally have a concept of resetting if it's going to be cacheable - Martin Thompson: great answer, don't need to write it down

Secondary Certificates: Mike

Adopted last time. Have merged it. Exported identifiers (TLS group)

Open issue: handling cases where the client wants to offer a cert because it expects the server to want it. How we're using frames on streams that may have already ended. On h2 it's OK, over QUIC doesn't, because it's already gone.

Mike: don't have advice for detecting key compromise

More to talk about, not going to WGLC any time soon!

Expect-CT: Emily can't be here.

no comments

Header Common Structure - Mark Nottingham

Cache Digests for HTTP/2 - Kazuho Oku

2 open issues (plus 1 editorial issue not covered today)

Explore on the list

Question: + remove etag/stale support? + most URLs the block rendering are long-term cacheable. + proposal: remove stale support

Client Hints

Not going to WGLC terribly soon


No update. Hopefully wind up soonish.

Related Work

Origin-Signed Exchanges: Jeffrey Yasskin, Chromium

Mark: Not considering adopting now, but that might change.

Proposed Work

HTTPtre: Julian Reschke and Roy Fielding

Notion: revise HTTP/1.1 ONE MORE TIME

We have been working in a temporary repo on Github, resurrected the old RFCs, and published six drafts with minimal editorial updates to reflect status:

The question is if the WG wants to adopt these documents with intent to revise, possibly consolidate, and publish toward full standard status.

Show of hands: 15 people willing to work on this!

Either 2 documents or 3 documents.

HUM: "if you want working group to take on draft-fielding-httpbis-* and produce fewer documents". Strong hums in support, no hums against.

Plan now is to shift over to BIS repo, rename it, and preserve issues list.

Preserving SNI privacy (yep, again)

Patrick: generally sympathetic with work. ALT-SVC might have some things to say about sni. Not sure if update required.

Authors: are you asking us to adopt these drafts? - no outstanding issues - would appreciate adoption



about 10 people have read draft

HUM: in favour of adoption, to be confirmed on the list.

Have parked Key - assumption is that this replaces Key. No objections.

Roy Fielding, as co-author of key: no objection