- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 09:17:38 +0200
- To: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Mohamed, > On 3 Oct 2025, at 7:51 am, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > I have a point inherited from my previous ballot which I think should be > clarified. > > # "minor" vs "major" > > It is not clear to me how these are characterized. New version is an example of > major revision but that case is called separately and is definitely out of > scope. > > Adding some few words to clarify what is "minor" vs "major" extension would > clarify the scope. Thanks. The intention here is that due consideration will be given to whether something deserves a separate WG, as was the case with MASQUE for example. This is very dependant upon context, and needs discussion with both the community and the AD. The most recent example of this was the 'reverse HTTP' work, which had a BoF because there wasn't clarity about adopting it in the WG. > # What is meant by "HTTP drafts" here? > > CURRENT: > The Working Group may make minor revisions to the core HTTP drafts under the same criteria The core HTTP drafts are RFC9110 through 9114. Would it be clearer to say 'RFCs' rather than 'drafts'? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 3 October 2025 07:17:44 UTC