On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I proposed a plan that I think might allow us to make progress
on that. I believe we could.
OK, great.
Could you please explain why you think tying this effort to HTTP/2.0 is
necessary to achieve that? To me that's the critical
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Port Control Protocol WG (pcp)
to consider the following document:
- 'Port Control Protocol (PCP)'
draft-ietf-pcp-base-23.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
On 2012-02-26 10:44, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
Could you please explain why you think tying this effort to HTTP/2.0 is
necessary to achieve that? To me that's the critical bit, and I still haven't
seen the reasoning (perhaps I missed it).
I think I have *an* answer to this, though probably not
Zc
-Original Message-
From: Yoav Nir
Sent: 26.02.2012, 11:45
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: The IESG; ietf-http...@w3.org Group; IETF-Discussion Discussion
Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis)
On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I
On 02/26/2012 01:54 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 26/02/2012, at 12:32 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Could you please explain why you think tying this effort to HTTP/2.0 is
necessary to achieve that? To me that's the critical bit, and I still haven't
seen the reasoning (perhaps I missed it).
+1
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international
community, it should support running code has been deployed in real network.
Quote from David Clark: We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in
rough consensus and running code.
B.R.
Feng
-Original
