IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 14 October 2015 00:30 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 4B08D1A92B0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:30:45 -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 6a-4Qj43Viya for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:30:42 -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 13BE61A92AB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Zm9uS-0008Hh-Qx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:27:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:27:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Zm9uS-0008Hh-Qx@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Zm9uO-0008Gw-Tl for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:27:08 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Zm9uL-0007kG-EX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:27:08 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.17] (unknown [120.149.147.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25B3E22E261; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <561CB1AA.7010608@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:26:35 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1868C91F-A91E-48D9-8BFF-118C7CBECEE5@mnot.net>
References: <0E5383DD-927C-493F-90C4-4A9C7CB93308@mnot.net> <560B60AA.504@treenet.co.nz> <5E7CE2C2-2126-4E3E-B18A-2EBD28CEE6D2@mnot.net> <561CB1AA.7010608@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.365, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Zm9uL-0007kG-EX dc4af6874685786b9ee90136de83e7d5
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/1868C91F-A91E-48D9-8BFF-118C7CBECEE5@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30363
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>

OK, let's accept Ted's proposal then; marking the issue as editor-ready.


> On 13 Oct 2015, at 6:24 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email