- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 18:23:40 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Message-ID: <CALGR9oYi9t7nYcPppm6sa0xtRwNSwiznw_J2OOE4tj2EgwK96Q@mail.gmail.com>
This looks good (and any lot better than the current stale text). One thing that crossed my mind, the document have now made a clearer split between semantics, caching and version. I presume these are all core and that extensions can apply to any/all of them. Should the charter draw any attention to this, or was it an explicit choice to remain a little vague on the specifics? For example, if I wanted to define a new version of HTTP would that be in scope of this current charter text or not? Cheers Lucas On Mon, 7 Jul 2025, 18:14 Mark Nottingham, <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Our Area Director noticed that our charter is woefully out of date, and > suggested we think about rechartering. After a bit of discussion between > the chairs and AD, this is what we're currently suggesting: > > ~~~ > ## HTTP Working Group Charter > > This Working Group is charged with maintaining and developing the core > specifications for HTTP and generic extensions to it (i.e., those that are > not specific to one application). > > Beyond specification work, the Working Group is a forum for implementers, > practitioners, and researchers to discuss the protocol, its operation and > evolution, to improve interoperability and ecosystem health. However, the > chairs may ask that some discussions be moved off-list to avoid interfering > with specification work. > > ### Work Mode > > 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 > > * The Area Director is informed of the addition. > > Work that may need substantial input from other areas (e.g., Security) > should be coordinated through the appropriate bodies (such as the > responsible Area Director or a general / 'dispatch' group). > > ~~~ > > Please take a look and share your thoughts. We'll reserve some time for > discussion in Madrid. > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > >
Received on Monday, 7 July 2025 17:23:57 UTC