Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 03 February 2017 01:22 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5899129A68 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:22:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FG3l_BFRtKbY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:22:38 -0800 (PST)
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 7946A129A66 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cZSXs-0002sx-8U for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:20:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:20:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cZSXs-0002sx-8U@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZSXm-0001Aa-LO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:20:06 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZSXa-0002ou-NU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:20:01 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6271322E1F3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:19:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Message-Id: <81804CAC-5851-412B-B346-320211CCC049@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:19:28 +1100
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
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=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.112, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cZSXa-0002ou-NU 3e002a0d922065133de112f8d508bfb0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/81804CAC-5851-412B-B346-320211CCC049@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33432
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>
Sending with a new Subject to make sure people see it. Let's say it'll last until at least 9 Feb. Cheers, > On 2 Feb 2017, at 6:28 am, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > > I would agree that the changes are pretty substantial, both in text and spirit. A short second WGLC seems like a good idea. Everyone give it a fresh read (I'll do likewise) and post any feedback to the list. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:08 PM > To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10 > > I know we're pretty exhausted with this one, but I do observe that the change since WGLC on this one are pretty substantial: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-04&url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10 > > However, Mike is Document Shepherd on this one, so I'll let him make the call as to whether we need another WGLC. Personally, I think if we do have one, a week or so would be sufficient. > > Cheers, > > >> On 1 Feb 2017, at 4:17 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I've just posted an update to this doc: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption/ >> >> This incorporates my best attempt to address the comments Kari had on >> the last version. If this is OK, I think that Mark should ask the >> IESG to publish this as Experimental. >> -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ht… Patrick McManus