- From: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:35:14 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14/12/15 12:23, Julian Reschke 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. > > 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. OK, I can live without the example. > 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. Yes, this affects a normative requirement. However my proposed addition is already in the spec, in the third paragraph of "9.2 Changing Hosts", which is referring to 2.1. I find it better to have the whole description in 2.1. > > 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? > > Best regards, Julian > Cheers, Hervé
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 15:35:48 UTC