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

Re: Call for Adoption: Expect-CT

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:22:01 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Message-Id: <01BF37AB-278D-4AD5-A648-C6E469602546@mnot.net>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Hi Martin,


> On 8 Dec. 2016, at 3:19 pm, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hello Mark,
> 
> On 2016/12/08 13:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Again, there seemed to be strong support in Seoul, and now on the list, for adopting this draft:
>> 
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stark-expect-ct>
>> 
>> Please comment / express support on list.
> 
> I haven't been in Seoul, and haven't read the draft, sorry.
> 
> I just have a small procedural question:
> 
> Are you expecting everybody who already somehow expressed support to repeat that here?
> 
> Or are we going to accept the draft based on pre-existing support, and this is just a formality to give people who would be opposed a last chance?

More the latter. It's extremely helpful if people repeat the support they showed "in the room", but experience shows us that people are seldom inclined to do so.

And, to be clear, it's not a count of how many are "for" or "against" -- it's whether there are good technical arguments as to why we should not start work in these areas, or information that shows it might not be useful to do so (e.g., a lack of interested implementors).

> 
> Or something in between (and if so, what)?
> 
> And similar for the other drafts (where your wording is different, but not really clearer).

Likewise.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 04:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 04:22:36 UTC