- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:26:21 +1100
- To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Mirja, On 10 Nov 2018, at 5:52 pm, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > First an editorial one: should it be "HTTP/2 Revision" instead of "HTTP/1.1 > Revision", or maybe just "HTTP Revision(s)"? The documents that refers to are the HTTP/1.1 document set, although many of them will emerge as just "HTTP...". > Then regarding the HTTP and QUIC part. I found it a bit weird and probably also > unecessary to mention review intentions in the charter. They're mentioned in the QUIC charter, so it seemed good to mirror them here. > However, I guess we > need at some point to discuss what to do with HTTP/3 after the QUIC group has > finsihed their mapping document. Is the intention to do another re-charter > then? Should we then maybe just wait until we have a better plan before we say > anything about this in ther httpbis charter? The chairs discussed this and I thought we'd agreed on some text, but I see that hasn't made it into datatracker; Alexey? > The timing doesn't seem to be > optional for me here but I assume the recharter is coming up because H2 is > basically done...? We realised that the charter was pretty out-of-date, and this initiated before we had the discussion about maintenance of the QUIC HTTP documents. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2018 00:26:58 UTC