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

#148: Reasonable Assurances and H2C

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:16:09 +1100
Message-Id: <C2145C5A-0255-43F9-A44A-F6C7974CDD4C@mnot.net>
To: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I've created
to track this.

I think removing h2c from the examples and clarifying the example as Kari explained (1 and 2 in the issue) are not controversial (verging on editorial).

The remaining question (3 in the issue) is whether we should firm up the definition of "reasonable assurances" to require another way of achieving that to be documented in an RFC that updates this one.

Mike B has already supported this approach; what do others think? 

> On 11 Feb 2016, at 2:48 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> I think Barry is about to start IETF LC on this, so if that happens, we'll
>> just consider this LC feedback.
> And so it was started, and so you should consider it.
> Barry

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 February 2016 02:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC