|
|
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!gateway
From: d...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Dave Raggett)
Newsgroups: info.ietf
Subject: DECEMBER '94: REVISED HTTP - HyperText Transfer Protocol BOF
Date: 30 Nov 94 16:01:37 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 104
Approved: Use...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Message-ID: <9411301101.aa05111@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Originator: dae...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Group Name: HTTP - HyperText Transfer Protocol BOF (http)
IETF Area : Applications Area
Date/Time : Wednesday, December 7, 1994
1930-2200
================
This is a further revision to the agenda for the IETF meeting in San Jose.
HTTP - HyperText Transfer Protocol BOF
Wednesday December 7th 1994
19:30-22:00
HTTP - the HyperText Transfer Protocol is an applications protocol which
serves as the basis of the World Wide Web distributed hypermedia system.
The principal goal of the BOF is to set up a working group to discuss
proposals for HTTP standardization. To clarify, and to a time-limited
extent start, the work of the group, work in progress will be presented
and priorities discussed. There is not time in this BOF to go into
detailed discussion of the technical points.
The first presentation will be of the updated draft HTTP 1.0 specification.
The chair suggests that the group get this on the table as an RFC with the
mimimum delay before working on extensions. This will be followed by a
discussion of issues relating to HTTP as a basis for planning subsequent
work. Following this, there will be presentations on the current status of
work for security over the web; the file upload proposal; and recent work
that yields dramatic improvements in performance. The final section will
review the proposed charter and formally recommend (or not) the setting up
of an IETF working group for the HyperText Transfer Protocol.
Please send comments on the agenda to Dave Raggett
AGENDA
Administrivia:
{Introduction
5 mins {Presentation of Agenda
{Changes to order of business
HTTP/1.0:
35 mins Report from HTTP 1.0 review group (Roy Fielding,
Henrik Nielsen
and Bob Denny)
During the report we would like people to flag concerns
for subsequent discussion on the http-wg mailing list.
20 mins HTTP Issues
This is a brainstorming session to identify and subsequently
priorize issues and concerns relating to HTTP. These will then
be reported in the minutes and discussed on the mailing list.
5 mins ---- COMFORT BREAK ----
HTTP Security:
10 mins Report on status (Tim Berners-Lee)
10 mins discussion
5 mins Update on URI issues (Larry Masinter)
HTTP-NG: (Simon Spero/Dave Raggett)
At the HTTP BOF in WWWF'94/Chicago we agreed to do some practical
work on ideas for improving performance, and to report on this
at the IETF meeting in San Jose. This presentation describes the
dramatic performance gains that have been achieved by adding a
session layer to tcp/ip and using a binary syntax for structured
data.
{Architecture and Requirements
30 mins {Specification overview
{Implementation experience and
{measurements
{Discussion
20 mins {Formation of working group.
{Discussion/Adoption of proposed charter
REQUIRED READING:
HTTP 1.0 specification and description of HTTP-NG
http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Protocols/Overview.html
MAILING LIST: http...@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
To subscribe: email http-wg-requ...@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
with the body of the message as: subscribe http-wg Your Full Name
ARCHIVE: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/
- --
Dave Raggett tel: +44 272 228046 fax: +44 272 228003
Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Road, Bristol BS12 6QZ, United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
SCO's Case Against IBM
November 12, 2003 - Jed Boal from Eyewitness News KSL 5 TV provides an
overview on SCO's case against IBM. Darl McBride, SCO's president and CEO,
talks about the lawsuit's impact and attacks. Jason Holt, student and
Linux user, talks about the benefits of code availability and the merits
of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. See SCO vs IBM.
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The materials and information included in these Web pages are not to
be used for any other purpose other than private study, research, review
or criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|