Re: Results of calls for adoption

Sorry, you're correct.

Cheers,


> On 18 Apr 2015, at 10:47 am, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> 
> Also, I notice the other drafts in there have names of the form draft-ietf-httpbis-* as opposed to the draft-httpbis-* that you suggest. Which is correct?
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Not hearing any objection (once the scope of 5987bis was clarified), we’ll adopt the following as WG drafts:
> 
> * draft-reschke-rfc5987bis —> draft-httpbis-rfc5987bis
> * draft-reschke-http-cice —> draft-httpbis-cice
> * draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status —> draft-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
> 
> Julian, could you please add your drafts to the http-extensions repo?
> 
> Tim, I’ve added you to the editors team on Github, so you should be able to check in your XML source (or Markdown, if you use it) to:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions
> 
> Feel free to ask me, Julian and Martin for help, especially regarding integration into the Travis build system (which is Martin’s specialty).
> 
> Once we get that sorted out, we can publish -00 drafts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)

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

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:48:32 UTC