Re: what's up with commenting on http/2 github issues

Mark Nottingham <> Wed, 24 April 2013 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DE421F8F2C for <>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.317
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqxzXf+i5Opv for <>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896C421F8F28 for <>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUuDI-0008LB-Ha for; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:34:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:34:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUuDE-0008KR-HG for; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:33:56 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUuDD-0003so-DQ for; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:33:56 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A88B50A86; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:33:28 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?William_Chan_=28=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98=8C=29?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.389, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1UUuDD-0003so-DQ ec7ff022c02c69eaff13da4605bdf169
Subject: Re: what's up with commenting on http/2 github issues
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/17528
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 24/04/2013, at 2:55 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <> wrote:

> I just noticed people are doing this and I'm missing some of the discussions. I'm starring the repo now and chiming in directly there, but I thought we had agreed all the discussions would happen in ietf-http-wg@. What's the plan?

I don't mind if people discuss editorial issues over there, nor is it a problem if they're getting clarification on a point there before taking it to the mailing list (especially since the list distribution is so broad). 

However, design decisions cannot happen over there. Any substantial discussions should be happening on this list, and I have been periodically prodding folks over there to that effect.

My biggest concern with this is that these side discussions will reduce the value of the issue database; the editors and I use it to track what needs doing, and if it becomes overloaded with noise, we can't do our jobs effectively.

If you see someone taking an issue's discussion in that direction, please help me by asking for discussion to be moved to the list (and NOT continuing it in the issue), or notifying me. 


Mark Nottingham