Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt

Hi Mark et al.,

+1.  FWIW, I also feel that the two drafts are ready, and would love
to see them go to the next stage before the holidays.

Thanks,

Bence

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Salvatore Loreto
<salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> +1
> I do think both HTTP/2 and HPACK documents are ready for advancement
> and they should get submitted to IESG asap
> so that the IETF last call and the IESG review can start before the vacation period
>
> br
> Salvatore
>
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 9:43 PM, "DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com>
>  wrote:
>
>> I also think we should get the documents submitted for IESG review sooner rather than waiting a few extra days.
>> Holiday season is around the corner and any delay will push the review  window further out.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:17 PM
>> To: Mark Nottingham; HTTP Working Group
>> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>>> Our issues list is empty, and I believe we have consensus to publish these
>>> documents.
>>
>> We agree.
>>
>>> Please have a look at the changes in this as well as HPACK-10, to verify that
>>> they incorporate the changes as discussed.
>>>
>>> I'm going to prepare the shepherd writeups and -- barring any surprises --
>>> submit them all for publication in a couple of days.
>>
>> Both HTTP/2 and HPACK are ready for advancement to IESG in our opinion. Is there any reason to wait even more days?
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 19:38:23 UTC