Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-02.txt> (Using Early Data in HTTP) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:01:55 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG
(httpbis) to consider the following document: - 'Using Early Data in HTTP'
  <draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-02.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2018-04-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document explains the risks of using early data for HTTP and
   describes techniques for reducing them.  In particular, it defines a
   mechanism that enables clients to communicate with servers about
   early data, to assure correct operation.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-replay/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-replay/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:35:54 +0200

>     early data, to assure correct operation.

It's a bit unfortunate to last-call a document that has been published 
five months ago and had several changes since.

The current diffs are:

https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-latest-from-previous.diff.html

I would recommend to publish a new draft, and to restart the last call 
with that version.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:46:05 +0200

Hi Julian,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:35:54PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It's a bit unfortunate to last-call a document that has been published five
> months ago and had several changes since.
> 
> The current diffs are:
> 
> 
> I would recommend to publish a new draft, and to restart the last call with
> that version.

Ah good point. I guess that most of us are now so much used to read latest
editor's drafts that we forget that the latest published one may lag a bit :-/

thanks,
Willy

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:52:13 +0200

Editorial nit:

>    [HEADERS]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
>               Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.

appears as normative reference, but only occurs in the IANA 
Considerations. I believe an informative reference is sufficient.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 08:48:24 +1000

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Apr 2018, at 12:52 am, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Editorial nit:
> 
> appears as normative reference, but only occurs in the IANA Considerations. I believe an informative reference is sufficient.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>