Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00>

Just curious, what do people think about this? 

There are a few different use cases, including:

* Doing it for updates to “normal” Web content — this would require both browser (or proxy) support as well as the server to track the diffs between what’s deployed. The former can come in time, but the latter is operationally difficult; it’s possible, but would take a fair amount of discipline (and some way for admins/devs to interact with the server to use this; not sure what that would look like yet).

* Doing it for “HTTP APIs” — Same issues as above, maybe a bit more manageable because the APIs tend to be code-managed / database-backed more.

* Doing it for the incremental update case mentioned in the draft’s appendix — I find this really intriguing, but it’s obviously half-baked.

What do people think? Not asking if we should adopt it, just whether I should rev the draft.

Cheers,



Begin forwarded message:

> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
> Subject: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
> Date: 8 September 2014 1:42:05 pm GMT+2
> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
> 
> The following draft will expire soon:
> 
> Name:     draft-nottingham-http-patch-status
> Title:    The 2NN Patch HTTP Status Code
> State:    I-D Exists
> Expires:  2014-09-14 (in 5 days, 19 hours)
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 13:28:22 UTC