Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

On 11/01/16 16:34, Mike Bishop wrote:
> Haven't heard back from Stephen on the port-change issue we wanted
> him to weigh in on; I sent him a reminder.

2nd one worked:-)

Lemme go back and read the mail. Please hassle me if I've not
gotten back by tomorrow sometime

Cheers,
S.

> 
> -----Original Message----- From: barryleiba@gmail.com
> [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Sunday,
> January 10, 2016 9:20 AM To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 
> Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org; HTTP Working Group
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: AD review of
> draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
> 
>>>> I don't think this is a 2119 "MAY": what *else* can it do?  You
>>>> have no other guidance about which alternative alternative to
>>>> pick, so....  I think this should just say, "it chooses the
>>>> most suitable...."
>>> 
>>> Agreed. I haven't changed that yet as it affects normative
>>> language but I will unless somebody wants to defend it soonish.
>> 
>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/a9df1e33703a2cb46c9b
>>
>> 
441bfca5bbc04fff80d1>
> 
> Nice.  Is this the last of the updates, or are we still working on
> any?  Whenever you're ready to post a new I-D version, I'll give it a
> check and request last call.
> 
> Barry
>

Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 16:46:05 UTC