Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-snell-merge-patch

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:27:14 -0800

APPSAWG,

I have a request to process the above draft through APPSAWG.  It is a small
document that has already received some review attention on the list, and
seems to be compatible with the two small JSON drafts we are already
processing (which are now in IESG Evaluation).

Can I get a sense of the group as to whether we want to handle this here,
probably briefly?  The alternative is to send it through as an AD-sponsored
individual submission, which is also fine; I'll shepherd it either way.

Opinions, please?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:24:16 +0900

Fine with me.   Regards,   Martin.

On 2013/01/10 6:27, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:12:35 +1100

> process the above draft through APPSAWG

Sounds like a good idea to me. draft-snell-merge-patch-08 is a decent spec; a nice adjunct to the json-patch spec.

--
James Manger

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 8:27 AM
To: IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-snell-merge-patch

APPSAWG,

I have a request to process the above draft through APPSAWG.  It is a small document that has already received some review attention on the list, and seems to be compatible with the two small JSON drafts we are already processing (which are now in IESG Evaluation).

Can I get a sense of the group as to whether we want to handle this here, probably briefly?  The alternative is to send it through as an AD-sponsored individual submission, which is also fine; I'll shepherd it either way.
Opinions, please?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair