- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:31:11 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 22/10/2014 1:53 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > This thread seems to be going off into defining an extension, which > is entirely appropriate. > > I'm not seeing broad acclaim for making any changes to the existing > scheme in the spec itself; in particular, Jeff's proposal failed to > get wide support. > > So, I think we can mark #578 as closed without action. I see only an extension for the unrelated timestamp things. Can we try seriously for a consensus on just Willys' patch to separate the tables? Other proposals got their own "vote" threads and many days before a consensus/non-consensus was declared. This one has only just had 25hrs buried at the back end of a long heated discussion. It is distinct from Jeff's reversal proposal and offers benefits to all participant "camps" over both that and the status quo. I fear it has got lost amidst this long thread on a rushed timescale. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJURxbvAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjIDsH/0kTj4EDsoirb9oy885Y+n8Z +8VQIRCYKlgrOXqmLBj9bNbFrCXA3M9P/ByeN9s9lFdF+T02j4klo69Ia08c/AJs iFoQx49ca7l09JPwn5fAsxIVW6NbkJV9OKJjpXTQ2tuWrjr9U+ah0Z9UczYhNI+W tRrcRQ+ir8LSs43tUjZKt+AkLpWLRuTY6/eLF1Ni9mZlr7Paye/Ckr2NcjRWYmIN IBoXdtnE/Upzq2Rf6MVWpH9y/vcBaCe2O4MziuziMqaITV2+MUXkgwng1z6sKiBe yCapsSiAeFjoJqKDDCzJHxb/TVD6+qo6bbgXqNYZ3ionHOtDB25ipvzbYWFtyKo= =dmQu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 02:31:45 UTC