W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:16:51 -0800
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, mnot@mnot.net
Message-ID: <164125901034.7008.5159545827192047177@ietfa.amsl.com>
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document. Please address Joerg's TSVART review.

Although it doesn't use an RFC2119 keyword, the reference to httpbis-priority
in Sec. 5.3.2 feels normative to me. There's no need to argue it out with me,
but as both drafts are done it seems harmless to make it a normative reference
(assuming you're going for PS).
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2022 01:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 4 January 2022 01:17:06 UTC