Re: Results of calls for adoption

Also, I notice the other drafts in there have names of the form
draft-ietf-httpbis-* as opposed to the draft-httpbis-* that you suggest.
Which is correct?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Not hearing any objection (once the scope of 5987bis was clarified), we’ll
> adopt the following as WG drafts:
>
> * draft-reschke-rfc5987bis —> draft-httpbis-rfc5987bis
> * draft-reschke-http-cice —> draft-httpbis-cice
> * draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status —>
> draft-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
>
> Julian, could you please add your drafts to the http-extensions repo?
>
> Tim, I’ve added you to the editors team on Github, so you should be able
> to check in your XML source (or Markdown, if you use it) to:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions
>
> Feel free to ask me, Julian and Martin for help, especially regarding
> integration into the Travis build system (which is Martin’s specialty).
>
> Once we get that sorted out, we can publish -00 drafts.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>


-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)