IETF Logo Mail Archive

Priorities

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 28 January 2014 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 7F5BC1A01BC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:29:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 21NkBtLocNtq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6271A008A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1W84wX-0001fh-Qo for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:26:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:26:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1W84wX-0001fh-Qo@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1W84wQ-0001a4-3C for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:26:46 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1W84wD-0003SW-I6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:26:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.77.182]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4GRv-1VGWRJ1MMV-00rr9W for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:26:06 +0100
Message-ID: <52E777AA.4090208@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:26:02 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <52E69987.8090405@fb.com> <CABaLYCuct8q4W1hes24YaMa2Pgs=6Qb4PsE=_5Naifr7YoN_OQ@mail.gmail.com> <aadb864db6674adb84259da04e709272@BY2PR03MB091.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <b3ff969e3ceee8a4bb666451f99ad2a1@treenet.co.nz> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1401271416070.24764@egate.xpasc.com> <0E94A572-A91D-4973-ADD4-D007AA0BD2F6@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E94A572-A91D-4973-ADD4-D007AA0BD2F6@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:9WMqgUdol4DJqu4ulDPcHFimlkG8+zp5nH7xsYpTf3PbfbaRpFv tHZxoCMwld5iCfsJVVbEuRBKil3GYQI547coB9kaCF0NIbxK5Yz8S4W3wof2BoOQgCCoI7g 695l/DlDzWvFvshKLbpfLacSJeW3emWeAWX96n5tWgrfu/11gu2jl8BoXtdA9DsAxYrqnly Vz4hY8ycPJnFj3BwL8w7Q==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.439, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1W84wD-0003SW-I6 5e2afa40c0dd77d54311b80d671987e0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Priorities
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/52E777AA.4090208@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/21960
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>

Hi there.

I appreciate the interesting discussion about the name of a constant in 
the HTTP/2 spec.

However I'd like to remind all of us about our charter which very 
clearly states in <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charters>

  "The Working Group will give priority to HTTP/1.1 work until that work 
is complete."

Right now the HTTP/1.1 specs are past IESG evaluation, with a lot of 
COMMENTs and a few DISCUSSes being resolved.

It would be awesome if we could get a few participants to review what 
has changed since -25; see either the trac timeline 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/timeline>, the issues list 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&milestone=26&col=id&col=summary&col=milestone&col=status&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&order=priority>), 
or the diff documents:

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest-from-previous.diff.html>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest-from-previous.diff.html

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-latest-from-previous.diff.html>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-latest-from-previous.diff.html>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest-from-previous.diff.html>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-latest-from-previous.diff.html>

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email