- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:41:41 +1000
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't see listing and discovery as a problem. We can (and should) modify the various directories so that the new thing can be found, but I find that https://github.com/httpwg/ is pretty good already. I can generate a PR on the extensions repo (and maybe the homepage, though I agree that's harder to do given its current structure) so that it is listed correctly. On 20 August 2017 at 21:20, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: > interesting, I've come full circle on this question and am content having > one place to look for all of these smaller projects (tho as I say - full > circle.). Basically if the email notifications had the file name in the > subject line I would be 100% happy. Mark - where do you stand now? > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> If you don't mind, I'd prefer to just move the repo and have it >> separate from the whole mess of other drafts. >> >> On 19 August 2017 at 03:34, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >> > Thank you all for the input. >> > >> > This is Adopted. >> > >> > Author(s), please get it into the repo and submit as >> > draft-ietf-httpbis-http-replay-00. Thanks! >> > >> > (Wily, Authors of current drafts are normally members of the github repo >> > so >> > you can work there. if you send me your github ID I'll add you as member >> > - >> > or you can rely on your co-authors for that.) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/08/17 03:25, Patrick McManus wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thomson-http-replay-01.txt >> >>> >> >>> We've been discussing the risks of algorithms around early data both >> >>> on >> >>> the list and face to face recently in Prague. This draft from Martin, >> >>> Wily, >> >>> and Mark has obviously been the nexus of that conversation and the >> >>> group >> >>> informally signaled support for adding it as a working group item >> >>> during the >> >>> recent meeting. >> >>> >> >>> Please state whether you support adoption, and ideally why. >> >>> Expressions >> >>> of interest in implementation would also be very helpful. >> >>> >> >>> We'll wait at least a week to make a decision, but hopefully we can >> >>> move >> >>> quickly here. >> >>> >> >>> -Patrick >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >From Squid. Tentative support for adoption. >> >> >> >> I have not heard explicitly from the guys working on TLS/SSL, so cannot >> >> speak as to implementation. However that goes it will be good to have >> >> something documented about the issues in this space. >> >> >> >> Amos >> >> >> > > >
Received on Monday, 21 August 2017 07:42:07 UTC