W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Alt-Svc WGLC

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:16:52 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AB07B887-8572-4B6D-8604-D40AD25E31A8@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 14 Dec 2015, at 10:23 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi there,
> thanks for the feedback so far.
> With the latest changes for issues <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/125> and <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/126> (see also <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-latest-from-previous.diff.html>), I believe we're almost ready for a new draft and potentially IETF Last Call.


> The remaining open points are:
> 1) In <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0375.html>, Hervé asked for an example of an ALTSVC frame. I note that the HTTP/2 spec doesn't have any examples of frames either, so I'm inclined not to add it.


> 2) In <https://github.com/hruellan/http-extensions/commit/fabd0943cde7e8af07f20b74acc2e48ac16e5f3e>, Hervé proposes a change that IMHO is not editorial as it affects a normative requirement. Feedback appreciated.

I'm OK with this.

> 3) Mike Bishop proposed a change in <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/101> which I was not happy with. Instead, I made the change <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/acc3ae3c4290323069501d55ea8cdb5bacdbc6e8> (which is already in the WGLC draft FWIW). Is anybody not ok with this resolution?

I think it's fine as is.

Just my .02,

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 01:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC