- From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:52:43 -0800
- To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
- Cc: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01: No Objection 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > # HTTP/1.1 Revision This seems a little confusing, as the HTTP/1.1 revision has already happened. Isn't this more like HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 maintenance? > * Incorporate errata > * Address ambiguities > * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the > specification * Clarify conformance requirements * Remove known ambiguities > where they affect interoperability * Clarify existing methods of extensibility > * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and also > unduly affect interoperability * Where necessary, add implementation advice It looks like this list got wrapped somehow. Perhaps include blank lines between bullets? > The Working Group may define extensions and other documents related to HTTP as > work items, provided that: * They are generic; i.e., not specific to one > application using HTTP. Note that Web browsing by definition is a generic use. > * The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the item > and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and * The > Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones. Same issue with bullet wrapping as above
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2018 23:53:07 UTC