Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>,
    httpbis chair <httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content'
  (draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics/


Technical Summary

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for
distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document
defines the semantics of HTTP/1.1 messages, as expressed by request methods,
request header fields, response status codes, and response header fields, along
with the payload of messages (metadata and body content) and mechanisms for
content negotiation.

Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed together:

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth
* draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations
* draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations


Review and Consensus

As chartered, this work was very constrained; the WG sought only to clarify
RFC2616, making significant technical changes only where there were
considerably interoperability or security issues. 

While the bulk of the work was done by a core team of editors, it has been
reviewed by a substantial number of implementers, and design issues enjoyed
input from many of them. 

It has been through two Working Group Last Calls, with multiple reviewers each
time. We have also discussed this work with external groups (e.g., the W3C TAG).


Downward references

* RFC1950
* RFC1951 (already in downref registry)
* RFC1952
* "Welch"


Personnel

Document Shepherd: Mark Nottingham 
Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba


RFC Editor Note

Please update the reference to RFC1305 to point instead to RFC5905