- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:01:05 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 14/09/21 11:53 am, Mark Nottingham wrote: > <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1639> > > In going over the draft during IESG processing, I noticed that there was some editorial misalignment between how we talk about parameters; this issue has a PR that attempts to correct that. > > I'm bringing it up to the WG because there is one non-editorial change involved: the text for `next-protocol` says 'This [parameter] is only applicable when that connection was actually established.' > > Upon reflection, that doesn't make sense -- both because it isn't aligned with how the other parameters work, and because there are situations where it's useful to record what the next protocol that was used to fetch a stored response was. > > See <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1640> for the suggested changes. > +1. LGTM Amos
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2021 01:06:15 UTC