Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-httpbis-08-02: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-httpbis-08-02: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** “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.”

Sometimes discussions are acceptable, but sometimes not?  How is the scope
determined? Is there a way to be more specific?

** Per, the “work mode” of “They are generic; i.e., not specific to one
application using HTTP. Note that Web browsing by definition is a generic use”
what new scope is given by this text given that the section prior said “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).”

** Per the “work mode” of “The Working Group Chairs judge that there is
consensus to take on the item”, how does this provide scope?  This is true of
every adopted WG document.

** Per the “work mode” of “The Area Director is informed of the addition”, does
the AD have to agree or are they just told this is happening?

** The currently approve -08 charter had the following considerations:
“In doing so, it should consider:
•       Implementer experience
•       Demonstrated use of HTTP
•       Impact on existing implementations and deployments”

Did the WG not find these important in scoping work?

** In reviewing the milestones, these are complete and can be marked as such. 
Congrats on finishing the work.
        Submit Client-Cert Header       rfc9440 (was
        draft-ietf-httpbis-client-cert-field) Submit Unprompted Auth  rfc9729
        (was draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth)

** Are these still valid milestones?  They are for expired drafts:
        Submit Secondary Server Certs  
        draft-ietf-httpbis-secondary-server-certs Submit Retrofit Structured
        Fields       draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 19:07:21 UTC