Re: [hybi] Spec progress vs IETF 78
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 28 June 2010 10:53 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 E95E93A69A8 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iodeOakeDnFo for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495E93A69B0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id o5SAqtaT002812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1277722385; x=1277808785; bh=qTkRH/j9Fgwgt4vrtp4r4IRnvupSwLCl7n2N8vAIZls=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=ZURdApjhD+BGliJeciFVRScmVieQtl/HKdzb/PgtgJW50Slau8tYHPYJ+w7Bvf5zb KKW8mPA3xRtxQA+9aBiA5e/CckBO4rFzaN9Q3TWYPVjxni4OYmXNipDf+2ccxBY704 bMziyGjZL9g3z7f/PhDfdrfUEGN3o3HOCySRcrFo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1277722385; x=1277808785; bh=qTkRH/j9Fgwgt4vrtp4r4IRnvupSwLCl7n2N8vAIZls=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=Gcj5xqxgWJ3qVoZIE/Wc3iH2ol2NNe3z3mknhSA42H77taMpR65g/ZlV7FvLmx1J0 6m41eqbGdzjSJ0/CH4aE44CMN5YzMLbAMjg/E2yPB/2N5DDpF+As/LwXmM8WFgJi2L xPVqdkF1cuxP0xKilW67/0y+elmz1EkL+aL4jWL4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=FsqkYzdJkKmq5TpK8SEO9PlxPQavUwN27tn6Z3/xIjdyAKg2Zd6Ng5xcRlyt9S0FM B67nDXo0eNVQblm8yfdHRYVDufTGYKFbF7mvfZZseVzhD35RLAXpOYg4gFnU75jdUIF HO6I+Db4F9mn8wa4eq5IsKYu4mPA4fMtMQPcgfk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100628034813.0af5cff8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:52:33 -0700
To: hybi@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C284518.1080509@gmx.de>
References: <4C284518.1080509@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [hybi] Spec progress vs IETF 78
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: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:53:05 -0000
At 23:45 27-06-10, Julian Reschke wrote: >Are we planning to fix at least some of these issues before the >submission deadline? There is also the three issues listed for draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements. >If anything reported in ><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02086.html> >*is* controversial, I'd appreciate if we could actually discuss those now-ish. I would appreciate that too. It allows people who cannot/do not attend the meeting to participate more easily in the discussions. Regards, -sm
- [hybi] Spec progress vs IETF 78 Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] Spec progress vs IETF 78 Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Spec progress vs IETF 78 SM