- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:14:21 +0100
- To: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-12-15 16:35, Hervé Ruellan wrote: > > > 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 Wednesday, 16 December 2015 09:14:53 UTC