RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10

I would agree that the changes are pretty substantial, both in text and spirit.  A short second WGLC seems like a good idea.  Everyone give it a fresh read (I'll do likewise) and post any feedback to the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:08 PM
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10

I know we're pretty exhausted with this one, but I do observe that the change since WGLC on this one are pretty substantial:
  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-04&url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10

However, Mike is Document Shepherd on this one, so I'll let him make the call as to whether we need another WGLC. Personally, I think if we do have one, a week or so would be sufficient.

Cheers,


> On 1 Feb 2017, at 4:17 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've just posted an update to this doc:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption/
> 
> This incorporates my best attempt to address the comments Kari had on 
> the last version.  If this is OK, I think that Mark should ask the 
> IESG to publish this as Experimental.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2017 19:29:34 UTC