Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-httpbis-07-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Spencer,
Sorry I missed your comments earlier.

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-httpbis-07-03: Yes

 [snip]

> 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 know this is a bit weird, but that is the current intent of the WG. Work on revising HTTP/2 will effectively result in HTTP/3. I don't think there is a separate effort just to revise HTTP/2 at this point. There is definitely an effort to revise HTTP/1.1

> 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.

If you can suggest some specific text, maybe we can discuss?

> 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.

Happy to do this change.

Best Regards,
Alexey

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2018 14:55:33 UTC