Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Éric,

The draft here and its adoption was extensively discussed in the working group, where there was consensus for adopting the work. I also have reviewed and approved the addition – the only thing missing was adding a milestone – we can do that really quickly to fix the oversight, but all the fundamental pieces are in place to move this forward as WG submitted. I do not believe AD sponsored is the right way to address this oversight, given the support of the wg.


From: iesg <> on behalf of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <>
Date: Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 08:40
To: The IESG <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: (with DISCUSS)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: Discuss

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.)

Please refer to
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05
cc @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. And I really mean it even when
balloting a blocking DISCUSS because it will be useful. BTW, I sincerely hate
to be process-focused and I hope to stand corrected quickly.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points, which may be resolved during the
IESG formal telechat.




As noted in, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Does it fit HTTPBIS charter ?

While I think that this document is useful (even if I have doubts about
standards track rather than informational as for the expired PCAP I-D in
OPSAWG), I fail to see how this document fits the HTTPBIS charter. The only
potential way is at the end of the charter: ``` # Other HTTP-Related Work

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.

But I do not see any related milestone to this document.

Moving this document to AD sponsored is probably the right way.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.


Received on Thursday, 16 June 2022 08:20:23 UTC