IETF Logo Mail Archive

[hybi] Objections (was: #1: HTTP Compliance)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 15 August 2010 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA403A6768 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agXwhhHJEHEN for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82323A66B4 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.29]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7FJfHii030784; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:41:22 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1281901285; bh=4atJFycDzoGIEcGYspc+5RrtK1g=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=3jpAa88vpmbijdt7gr4n2cyy2VjxLng8UFYMqRVn5b5AByT4xZxLtj6MM7MN2MiQ0 OqbwapLVm+6EziJLFwmy3kvos1FyEC8SjUyBFtKu/soe2xMPjTmXDrgNIY/ap4jn0X DBa/EI/I9IuTnE/KRRdB+kq/qVc/pa/LLHo8FWXQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100815120610.06140460@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:37:22 -0700
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinfY-g3zpCCWLov+384j-45cdCCzb1Cq+ByJVB2@mail.gmail.c om>
References: <ae7473f15c4839c4efba4ea9fc4c0953.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> <AANLkTinfY-g3zpCCWLov+384j-45cdCCzb1Cq+ByJVB2@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: [hybi] Objections (was: #1: HTTP Compliance)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:40:57 -0000

Hi Adam,
At 11:12 15-08-10, Adam Barth wrote:
>That "declaration of consensus" was premature.  The working group has
>not reached consensus on that point.

As a datapoint, the WG Chairs asked me to log the TLS/NPN issue in 
the tracker as a future feature enhancement.

The WG Chairs posted a clarification about the declaration of consensus [1].

I'll comment on objections in general terms.  It is appropriate to 
object to a decision of the WG Chairs.  If anyone has such an 
objection, please email the objection to the HyBi WG Chairs [2].

The WG Chairs can provide an explanation about a decision if the 
matter is discussed informally.  If there is a formal objection, it 
is up to the person objecting to argue why the decision of the WG 
Chairs was incorrect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03087.html
2. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email