- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:45:45 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12/11/2007, at 10:47 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > I think it would be good to have a new version of draft-lafon- > rfc2616is available as input. > > Currently, my copy has the following issues from the issues list > marked as "closed": > > i25-accept-encoding-bnf: WG status active (i25) > i26-import-query-bnf: WG status active (i26) > i31-qdtext-bnf: WG status active (i31) > i65-informative-references: WG status active (i65) > i66-iso8859-1-reference: WG status active (i66) > i68-encoding-references-normative: WG status active (i68) > i70-cacheability-of-303: WG status active (i70) > i84-redundant-cross-references: WG status active (i84) > i86-normative-up-to-date-references: WG status active (i86) > i87-typo-in-13.2.2: WG status active (i87) > > Should I go ahead and submit a draft -04 with these changes? i25, i31, and i70 are design issues. Let me review the discussion on them, and if they need more, I'll ping the list shortly (it's getting late here, so it might be tomorrow); otherwise, we can close them. The rest are editorial, and can (and should) be incorporated. A new draft before the meeting would be great, but isn't essential. >> * Open HTTP issues > > The current issues list contains tons of smaller issues, but a few > harder ones. I think it would be good to make solid process on these: > > - ABNF conversion (do we keep the LWS handling, do we keep the # > rule?) <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/ > #i30> and <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/ > #i36> Would you be willing to make a presentation outlining the choices here? Kind regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 12:48:52 UTC