+1 (binding)

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 2:01 AM Ben Kietzman <ben.kietz...@rstudio.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:31 PM Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:07 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +1 (binding).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Antoine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 08/04/2019 à 20:36, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > David Li has proposed to make the following change to the Flight gRPC
> > > > service definition, as explained in this document:
> > > >
> > >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Eps9eHvBc_qM8nRsTVwVCuWwHoEtQ-a-8Lv5dswuQoM/
> > > >
> > > > The proposed change is to replace (host, port) pairs to identify
> > > > endpoints with RFC 3986-compliant URIs.  This will help describe with
> > > > much more flexibility how a given Flight stream can be reached, for
> > > > example by allowing different transport protocols (gRPC over TLS or
> Unix
> > > > sockets can be reasonably implemented, but in the future we may also
> > > > want to implement transport protocols that are not gRPC-based, for
> > > > example a REST protocol directly over HTTP).
> > > >
> > > > An example URI is "grpc+tcp://192.168.0.1:3337".
> > > >
> > > > Please vote whether to accept the changes. The vote will be open for
> at
> > > > least 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 Accept this change to the Flight protocol
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because...
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > >
> > > > Antoine.
> > > >
> > >
>

Reply via email to