fully* supportive, not sully - sorry. On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:27 AM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've reviewed this document, and while I'm sully supportive of the general > direction, I think it could benefit from a bit more editorial work before > publication. I've filed a few issues (see below) but overall I think the > format section needs to be more precise about the meaning of all the fields. > > Thanks, > David > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1943 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1944 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1945 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1946 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1947 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1948 > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:29 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > >> This message begins Working Group Last Call for >> draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-01, 'Binary Representation of HTTP >> Messages'. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message/ >> >> Please read the document, raise issues if you find any, and indicate >> on-list whether you support its publication. >> >> WGLC will end on 4 March 2022. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 7 February 2022 19:28:42 UTC