search

httpwg / httpbis-issues

1 stars 1 forks source link

IESG ballot on draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25 #533

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 10 years ago

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

''see #525''

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. -- ''see #538''

Reported by julian.reschke@gmx.de, migrated from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/533

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored.

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description.

to:

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description.

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description.

to:

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. -- ''see #538''

mnot commented 10 years ago

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. -- ''see #538''

to:

Jari Arkko

Comment (2013-12-19)

Meral Shirazipour raised some editorial comments in the Gen-ART review. I thought that the examples comment was a valid one, for instance. But I have not seen a response. Did the authors consider the comments?

(Of course, not all comments may result in changes. For instance, the issues of splitting or merging the documents are in my opinion something that is difficult to deal with at this stage, and I understand the WG if they do not want to make changes. Assuming all relevant text is still somewhere and reachable through references, of course.)

''see #525''

Sean Turner

Comment (2013-12-19)

*) I'll not repeats the OWS discuss point from p1. If it gets changed there I assume it will get changed here. If not then this can be ignored. -- ''see #537''

0) Abstract: Maybe would add stateless in front of protocol in the description. -- ''see #538''