- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:44:27 +1000
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 May 2018, at 6:52 am, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > > • Section 5 “replaces the GET based request in [RFC6455]” and makes other modifications to the requirements contained therein. This seems to suggest that it updates RFC6455 as well. > I'm not entirely sure if it updates 6455 or just sort of incorporates 6455 into a whole new use case, but in any event its useful reading for consumers of 6455 so I agree we should add that meta data. I am curious about Mark and/or Alexey's take on this too. It's a good question; this is a fuzzy area. I'm happy to just point out the possibility in the Shepherd's Writeup and let the IESG figure it out, since it's almost certain to be debated there no matter what we do here. Does that work for everyone? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2018 22:44:57 UTC