- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:50:49 +1000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACweHNBcy+-BrzNW+oX0mSanJ9pau=EYx3-cg-kpUMeogBUYkg@mail.gmail.com>
On 14 June 2014 05:00, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 4:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > There are also other things to think about for future HTTP work, such > as, in no particular order: > > > [...] > > - addressing the C-E/Range Request issue > > That needs a draft and a serious amount of discussion on-list first; two > hours in a room in Toronto are not going to move it significantly forward > if we don’t have those first. > > Is anyone writing a draft here? > > I'm thinking about it , but I'm not sure what approach to take. I have the start of a h2 extension-based draft here, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. > [...] > > > - common header field syntax (JSON?) > > This is VERY speculative (although I have thought about it too). I-D? > > Or perhaps revisiting draft-snell-httpbis-bohe. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ On 14 June 2014 05:00, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 4:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > There are also other things to think about for future HTTP work, such > as, in no particular order: > > > > - how to handle RFC723? errata > > That’s an administrative issue; we don’t need to be in the same room to > figure it out. > > > > - addressing the C-E/Range Request issue > > That needs a draft and a serious amount of discussion on-list first; two > hours in a room in Toronto are not going to move it significantly forward > if we don’t have those first. > > Is anyone writing a draft here? > > > > - enhanced discover of C-E support > > Again, we need a draft. Is anyone writing? > > > > - common header field syntax (JSON?) > > This is VERY speculative (although I have thought about it too). I-D? > > > > ...essentially all HTTP related topic that have come up in the past but > was but aside due to other priorities. > > Indeed, these things are in-scope for our WG. However, we don’t > necessarily have to meet to make progress on them, especially when they > haven’t yet been discussed on-list. > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 21:51:17 UTC