Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis, was: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[email-masked]>
To: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>, HTTP Working Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:06:08 +0000
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>

--------
In message <[email-masked]>, Julian Reschke writes:

>We could. But then we'd define something new, instead of just updating a 
>specification of something that has been used for something like 15 
>years already.
>
>[...]
>
>We can and should new ways to address this (and the JSON-in-field-values 
>spec is one proposal). But this is not the spec to do this.

So why bother updating a 15 year old spec, why not focus on the
JSON-in-field-values stuff and move forward ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[email-masked]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.