Actually, clarifying the "sooner" (or, really, backing off on it):
For the example below, Julian really had little chance to comment. That
was made because of a late comment during IESG Evaluation. Sorry: this
happens sometimes, much as it shouldn't. I'm glad you caught it.
In any case, the advice stands: please work this out now, and we'll fix it
in AUTH48.
b
On Friday, October 26, 2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>>> So I think there should be another LC, optimally after we are done with
>>> the HTTPbis WGLCs.
>>>
>>
>> So I hear this was approved in the meantime without another round of
>> review. This is bad.
>
>
> You needed to have brought this up a lot sooner.
>
>
>>
>> For instance, the newly introduced Preference-Applied header field is
>> defined as:
>>
>> Preference-Applied = "Preference-Applied" ":" 1#token
>>
>> and has the example:
>>
>> Response:
>>
>> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> Content-Type: application/json
>> Preference-Applied: return=representation
>> Content-Location: /my-document
>>
>> {"a": 1}
>>
>> But the "token" ABNF production doesn't include "=".
>>
>> There may be more problems like these. Please go back to LC.
>
>
> No. Please work out any issues with James, and they can be fixed in
> AUTH48 (which won't happen until the httpbis docs are done anyway). That
> shouldn't be a problem. But work them out now, before anyone forgets, and
> let me know the result so I can be sure the changes get in.
>
> Barry
>
>
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 12:22:30 UTC