- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:00:41 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 28/03/2015 6:54 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote: > Oh, and I have to apologize for dropping the ball on this one. It > somehow didn't get recorded as an issue. I have corrected that: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/57 > > On 27 March 2015 at 12:53, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 27 March 2015 at 01:49, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> I'm fine with several proposals, as long as there's the ALPN name in >>> the header name to indicate that whatever value is advertised must be >>> a valid, registered ALPN token. >> >> Would everyone be OK with the following header field name: "ALPN" ? > Okay by me too. Though the header is of less interest for Squid in its current form than I had thought earlier. Amos
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2015 05:01:24 UTC