Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 04 June 2012 01:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB2721F87ED for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KYsyoz+UaImL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9AC21F87F3 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.203.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E19122E259; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FC9F20F.6060205@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:38:20 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A29BE35F-2713-4147-B79A-60C3440B586A@mnot.net>
References: <7B9B7D15-9510-4C90-9B77-EEC55262758C@mnot.net> <4FC9F20F.6060205@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Kelly <mike@stateless.co>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:38:33 -0000
On 02/06/2012, at 8:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-01 03:08, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> We've published an -02 draft of LCI: >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-02> >> >> and intend to request publication as an Individual Submission Informational RFC soon (the link relations have just been submitted for review). Feedback still welcome (http list is best, I think). >> ... > > HTTPbis introduces a registry for cache directives (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19.html#rfc.section.3.2.3>). > > Would it make sense to change the dependency from RFC 2616 to HTTPbis, and to register as defined in Part 6? I'm not against it, although it'd require reworking the BNF. I'll look into it. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LCI -02 Poul-Henning Kamp