Thank you Kathleen for your extensive and detailed review. It is very much
appreciated, and these reviews are essential for both the document authors to
understand reactions from readers and for us at the IESG to understand how
baked the documents are.
I have looked at this thread and the
Group
Subject: Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations
Hi Kathleen,
Personally - I'm not convinced, because the people who would benefit from that
warning are almost certainly not going to be reading this document.
We're already
, 2013 9:12 PM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: HTTP Working Group; Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations
On 19/11/2013, at 4:46 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Section 9.3: You may want to include
: HTTP Working Group; Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of
draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations
On 19/11/2013, at 4:46 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Section 9.3: You may want to include information that informs
of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
with security considerations
Kathleen,
thanks for the feedback.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
Review Date: November 18, 2013
IETF
Hello Julian,
Responses in-line.
From: Julian Reschke [julian.resc...@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:46 PM
To: HTTP Working Group; Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
with security
