Re: Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

LGTM; I'm prepared to update the firefox implementation to match.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:08 PM
> > To: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: HTTP Working Group <[e-mail]>; Mike Bishop <
> [e-mail]>
> > 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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/
>
>
>