W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Using 209 for Contents of Related

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:25:23 -0400
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>, "superuser@gmail.com" <superuser@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140819172522.GC20320@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> [2014-08-19 16:21+1000]
> Hi Philippe,
> With my HTTPbis Chair hat on --
> > On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:06 am, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Apps Area Chairs, IETF contact, and HTTP Chair,
> > 
> > The Linked Data Platform WG is using a new response code to shortcut the
> > common POST->303 Location:X, GET ->200 interaction.
> "Using" here causes concern; is it no longer "proposing"?

This is within the WG which means that we have control over it (everyone's playing nicely and aware that this is provisional).

> > Eric Prud'hommeaux submitted a draft [2NN] before the last IETF meeting
> > in Toronto, but Mark said that the HTTPbis WG is too busy to take this
> > up and that we should take it to the Applications WG.
> I don't recall doing that.

Yeah, I told PLH that you had told me to take it to Applications, but searching my email, I think it was instead Yves or someone else who had suggested this, which means this request must come out of left field. Apologies!

The issue does remain, however; would it be better to take this to Applications?

> I emailed Eric (and others) about this in June, but didn't get a response until 17 July, by which time it was too late, so I suggested the Honolulu meeting (but still in httpbis).
> Eric is free to bring it up on the WG mailing list in the meantime, of course.

I got a couple of private emails discussing the impact on caches, but nothing on-list. Should I poke the list somehow, and if so, is there a protocol to say "pay attention to me!"?

> It's getting hard to escape the feeling that people expect that the HTTP WG is going to rubber-stamp this proposal; I wouldn't make that assumption, and (once again) encourage its proponents to bring it up on the WG mailing list. 

I understand the concearn, but I think the TAG and the LDP WG are anxious to engage the community about this. I'd like to get some idea of the right forum so I can guage interest and issues.

> Regards,
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 17:25:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:10:15 UTC