W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:23:05 +1100
Message-Id: <7AAA0658-5150-4F20-8357-2A4C1A5243D0@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
FYI, WGLC tickets are captured here:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/20


On 15/03/2012, at 6:20 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> After discussion with the editors and ADs, I believe the following documents are ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC):
> 
> HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19
> 
> HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-19
> 
> HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19
> 
> HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19
> 
> To encourage implementers to review and provide feedback on the documents, we're doing a four-week WGLC, ending on April 12, 2012. However, early reviews are appreciated, as that will give us the opportunity to discuss potential changes at our Paris meeting.
> 
> *** Providing Feedback
> 
> Your input should be sent to this mailing list, clearly marked with "WGLC" and the appropriate part. E.g., with Subject lines such as:
> 
> Subject: WGLC review of p4-conditional
> Subject: WGLC issue: "foo" in p5
> 
> Issues that you believe to be editorial in nature (e.g., typos, suggested re-phrasing) can be grouped together in a single e-mail. Substantive issues (what we call "design" issues) that may need discussion should be sent one per e-mail, with a descriptive subject.
> 
> If you disagree with the resolution of a previously discussed issue, you're encouraged to note that at this time.
> 
> *** What's Next
> 
> The Working Group will discuss these issues, re-issuing drafts as necessary. Tickets raised on these drafts will have a severity of "In WG Last Call" , and once they are disposed of, we'll see if there's consensus on going to IETF Last Call on them (as Chair, I'll judge this for each document except p6, where I'll defer to Mark Baker, the document shepherd, since I've edited a substantial part of that specification).
> 
> p1, p2 and p3 should join them in WGLC at or shortly after our Paris meeting. We anticipate sending all of the documents to IETF LC together.
> 
> Thanks to the editors for their hard work in getting to this point.
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 00:23:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT