IETF Logo Mail Archive

Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 01 October 2015 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18141B29C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjL7ra_LG7O0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47E171B29C3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZhWKn-0004pQ-BS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:23:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:23:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZhWKn-0004pQ-BS@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ZhWKk-0004og-5w for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:23:10 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ZhWKg-0008IE-JF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:23:08 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (unknown [120.149.147.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF8BA22E261 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EFF24778-0AF9-40AF-AB08-85367FEB527A@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:22:40 +1000
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.248, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZhWKg-0008IE-JF cc2d256dd5220371c5b3d704ae5a5d85
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Call for Adoption: draft-fielding-http-key
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EFF24778-0AF9-40AF-AB08-85367FEB527A@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30295
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We discussed this document in Dallas:
  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-http-key>
... as well as on and off since then.

Based on the feedback received and after discussion with our Area Director, I believe that we should adopt this document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard. 

Since I'm an author on the document, I've asked Martin Thomson to be Document Shepherd, to help judge consensus both of the CfA and during the document's LC, should we adopt it. He has graciously agreed.

Please comment on-list; we’ll make a decision about adoption at the end of next week. The result of this CfA will also help us determine how to go forward with the Client Hints document.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email