- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:16:52 +1100
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14 Dec 2015, at 10:23 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi there, > > thanks for the feedback so far. > > With the latest changes for issues <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/125> and <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/126> (see also <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-latest-from-previous.diff.html>), I believe we're almost ready for a new draft and potentially IETF Last Call. LGTM. > The remaining open points are: > > 1) In <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015OctDec/0375.html>, Hervé asked for an example of an ALTSVC frame. I note that the HTTP/2 spec doesn't have any examples of frames either, so I'm inclined not to add it. +0.5. > 2) In <https://github.com/hruellan/http-extensions/commit/fabd0943cde7e8af07f20b74acc2e48ac16e5f3e>, Hervé proposes a change that IMHO is not editorial as it affects a normative requirement. Feedback appreciated. I'm OK with this. > 3) Mike Bishop proposed a change in <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/101> which I was not happy with. Instead, I made the change <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/acc3ae3c4290323069501d55ea8cdb5bacdbc6e8> (which is already in the WGLC draft FWIW). Is anybody not ok with this resolution? I think it's fine as is. Just my .02, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 01:17:27 UTC