On 7/6/17 8:40 PM, Kazuho Oku wrote: > Regarding the wording, I think it would be better to keep the tone > as-is, rather than suggesting implementers not to send an Early Hints > response over HTTP/1.1 depending on the client. Yeah, you don't want to discourage implementation. I think the goal is to find some balance between not putting off implementers on the one hand, and having to deal with an embarrassing incident on the other. I'd be more comfortable with language that's a bit stronger but it's not a huge issue, certainly not one that's an impediment to moving the document forward (particularly given that it's intended for publication as an experimental standard). In general I thought the draft was clearly written and straightforward, and ready for publication modulo this one minor issue. Melinda
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature