W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

RE: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:34:39 +0000
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN3PR03MB13675838E560ED08916D245187C90@BN3PR03MB1367.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Haven't heard back from Stephen on the port-change issue we wanted him to weigh in on; I sent him a reminder.

-----Original Message-----
From: barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

>>> I don't think this is a 2119 "MAY": what *else* can it do?  You have 
>>> no other guidance about which alternative alternative to pick, 
>>> so....  I think this should just say, "it chooses the most suitable...."
>> Agreed. I haven't changed that yet as it affects normative language 
>> but I will unless somebody wants to defend it soonish.
> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/a9df1e33703a2cb46c9b

> 441bfca5bbc04fff80d1>

Nice.  Is this the last of the updates, or are we still working on any?  Whenever you're ready to post a new I-D version, I'll give it a check and request last call.


Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 16:35:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:10 UTC