W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Cache Digests status

From: <block.rxckin.beats@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:39:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMaRJ1Poxo7jBD8pqN5zjDJbEfXMtu+=AoXRhxzN6gidLqTgmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
I don't wanna let Cache Digest dead too.

currently mozilla seems not mention about this,
so I'm asking Mozilla Standard Position.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/131

reply for this will good material for considering this specs future.

Jxck

2019年1月24日(木) 18:12 Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>:

> Thanks for the notice.
>
> This draft seemed like a good solution to optimize PUSH and I was
> looking forward to it (mostly for server/API/mobile clients). Are there
> any plans for an alternative?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On 14/01/2019 07:29, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > After discussion with the editors, the chairs believe that it isn't
> likely that this draft will be implemented widely enough to justify
> standardisation - even as Experimental - in the foreseeable future.
> >
> > Therefore, we intend to move it to the "dead" state (as described in <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/ietf>).
> >
> > Note that if sentiment changes, the draft *can* be "resurrected." If
> we've misread the signals and there are people intending to implement
> (especially on the browser side, as that's the primary use case it's
> designed for), please bring that to our attention.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2019 10:24:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 24 January 2019 10:24:47 UTC