Closed sdatspun2 closed 2 months ago
@richsalz thoughts?
Why is this standards track? The shepherd's writeup explanation of "that makes sense since it defines a new HTTP header field" seems at odds with RFC8594 being Informational. Should that have been standards track?
RFC 8594 was a non-WG submission so it wasn't appropriate for it to be standards-track. This document has had extensive WG and consensus work, so it seems appropriate here.
@fpalombini pl take a look at the latest draft in repo and let me know if you are ok. I will publish the next draft with these changes.
@fpalombini
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM Robert Sparks wrote: Thanks - I'm fine with this version. It would be good for fresher eyes should watch for other improvements like this as it finishes review.
RjS
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/k9AI4qpTnBqE2PJLdxWEJDJco7w/
@fpalombini