Anyone? On 8 Feb 2011, at 20:53, Noah Slater wrote:
> Help appreciated. > > He raises a good point though, as those links don't work now. > > I'm not sure what level of description they require. > > Probably nothing more than a handful of paragraphs to explain how CouchDB is > a special use-case for HTTP. In the original submission for TCP 5984, I > pointed out that TCP 80 is specifically reserved for "World Wide Web HTTP." > My argument hinged on the fact that CouchDB is expected to be run on a > machine (perhaps on a private interface) that is simultaneously serving up > this kind of "World Wide Web" traffic, and so this warranted a separate port. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Dear Noah Slater: >> >> Thank you for your patience while your application was being reviewed. >> The expert review team still has questions for clarifications with respect >> to your request. >> >> - You provided the following for couchdb (#5984): >> >> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=CouchDb_Quick_Overview >> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=Technical_Overview >> http://www.couchdbwiki.com/index.php?title=HTTP_REST_API >> >> Do you have an updated description of the protocol CouchDB over TLS/SSL? >> >> - It will also be useful to include a fundamental description in >> the template itself rather than points. URLs are useful, but they might >> not be reachable in the future. IESG requires that the technical >> description shall be documented in the application for future >> reference purposes. >> >> If we do not receive the information within 30 days (i.e. 2011-03-10), >> your request will be resolved without prejudice, as a matter of >> administrative procedure. >
