wfm thanks On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > 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 23:18:20 UTC