- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:30:01 +0200
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <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>
On 2014-08-19 19:25, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * 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. The right forum is the HTTP Working Group. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 20:30:39 UTC