- From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 18:14:57 +0000
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-httpbis-07-03: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-httpbis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This revision looks "Yes"-able, but of course, I have questions ... but they're mostly for the ART ADs. I'm somewhat surprised that a revision of HTTP/1.1 is called out, but a similar effort for HTTP/2 is not (and maybe more surprised because HTTP/3 extensions are mentioned). I should just assume that if work on HTTP/2 turns out to be necessary, the working group would be rechartered, maybe? I see that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis/ is in WGLC now, so maybe it's not worth mentioning, but I'm getting a sense that ART and TSV are going to be having more conversations about the evolution of transport that involve HTTP as an application substrate. TSVAREA gave over our entire agenda at IETF 103 for topics in this space. It might be that the ART ADs would not have those conversations in HTTPbis, or would be part of a later recharter, but I did want to ask if they should be in charter for HTTPbis now, since we're balloting on an update. And a nit - if "The Working Group will refine the "core" HTTP document set (RFC 7230-RFC 7235)" actually means "revise" that document set, I'd suggest saying so.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 10:11:36 UTC