IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Tue, 13 October 2015 07:29 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 868431B3652 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:29:43 -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 J3d8ROwkH7Sq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:29:40 -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 403661B3649 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZltyK-0006RV-DA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:26:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:26:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZltyK-0006RV-DA@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 <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1ZltyH-0006Qf-9r for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:26:05 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1ZltyD-00014b-Qs for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:26:03 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.42.176]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE440E6DA0; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:25:02 +1300 (NZDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <0E5383DD-927C-493F-90C4-4A9C7CB93308@mnot.net> <560B60AA.504@treenet.co.nz> <5E7CE2C2-2126-4E3E-B18A-2EBD28CEE6D2@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <561CB1AA.7010608@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:24:26 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5E7CE2C2-2126-4E3E-B18A-2EBD28CEE6D2@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZltyD-00014b-Qs d901b0a7e25fd5906e19c8f2cc9e0022
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/561CB1AA.7010608@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30358
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>

On 13/10/2015 1:33 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Amos,
> 
> I've raised the first issue here as:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/103
> 
> What do you (and others) think about Ted's suggestion?
> 

Works far better than what was there before. If we cant get away from
the singular nature of "demand" this is at least a bit more flexible in
use-case coverage.

> The rest of it looks like editorial suggestions, so I'll leave them for Tim to take on board.

Ok.

Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email