- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 09:32:53 +1000
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Lucas Pardue" <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Tommy Pauly" <tpauly@apple.com>
I'm inclined to suggest that minor revisions to the core drafts be kept in-scope for the group, with the same conditions as you put on extensions. A new HTTP version would not be minor; the distinction between minor and not is one that the chairs and AD can approve or reject using their judgment. So while HTTP/4 might be obviously not-minor, a revision to remove server push from various existing versions might be considered minor enough to permit without recharter. On Tue, Jul 8, 2025, at 03:25, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I think we'd recharter do to any 'core' work -- strictly (and perhaps > creatively) read this charter would allow that but it'd be better to > make it explicit. > > Cheers, > > >> On 7 Jul 2025, at 7:23 pm, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 Our Area Director noticed that our charter is woefully out of date, and suggested we think about rechartering.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/ >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 7 July 2025 23:33:17 UTC