- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:21:31 +1100
- To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I consider this a purely editorial issue, in that it does not appear on the wire, nor does it affect the operation of the protocol. The editor does not need to clear every changed word on the list before committing it; that would be ludicrous, and I’m a bit surprised to see you imply that it’s necessary. Once a draft is published, we comment upon it (both for substantial and more trivial issues), and we move on — this has been the working mode of this group now for years. As Martin said, the editor does take suggestions, especially those in the form of a pull request. I trust he’ll consider all input and we’ll end up in the right place; if not, we’ll discuss it and move on. Note that this is *not* a call to start an endless rathole on what flavour like people best; group wordsmithing does not work, and we have a lot to do. Regards, P.S. I take people’s focus on the colour of the paint here to mean that they consider the rest of the renovation done, so that’s good, I suppose. On 28 Jan 2014, at 9:37 am, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: > > I've searched the list archive and can't find any reference to > GTFO prior to the current dicussion. > > I believe it is IETF policy that all decisions need to be validated > on the mailing list. > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Martin Thomson wrote: > >> On 27 January 2014 13:54, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote: >>> On the server's decision to end communications with the client, it sends the >>> Frame Utility Closure Key. >> >> I say this to everyone who wants to make a trivial change that does >> not affect protocol function, or improve spec comprehension. >> >> I do not make those sorts of changes without a pull request. See: >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 01:22:02 UTC