Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-cice

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 31 March 2015 04:11 UTC

Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:08:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YcnTr-0005cE-1N@frink.w3.org>
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E2498EA-CE93-40B2-A610-1244702AD5BD@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:07:58 +1100
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
Subject: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-cice
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5E2498EA-CE93-40B2-A610-1244702AD5BD@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

We discussed this document in Dallas:
  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-http-cice>

Based on the feedback received, I believe that we should adopt this document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard.

I've discussed it with our Area Director, who agrees that it's a reasonable thing for us to do.

This work should be relatively straightforward; it’s an incremental extension that makes an existing capability in responses more available in requests. Therefore, I don’t anticipate us getting to IETF LC much past the Prague meeting, unless we encounter more involved issues, or decide to address more use cases within the same specification.

Please comment on-list; we’ll make a decision about adoption at the end of the week.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-cice Mark Nottingham
Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-http-cice Willy Tarreau