Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-httpbis-07-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:26:21 +1100

Hi Mirja,

On 10 Nov 2018, at 5:52 pm, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:

> First an editorial one: should it be "HTTP/2 Revision" instead of "HTTP/1.1
> Revision", or maybe just "HTTP Revision(s)"?

The documents that refers to are the HTTP/1.1 document set, although many of them will emerge as just "HTTP...".

> Then regarding the HTTP and QUIC part. I found it a bit weird and probably also
> unecessary to mention review intentions in the charter.

They're mentioned in the QUIC charter, so it seemed good to mirror them here.

> However, I guess we
> need at some point to discuss what to do with HTTP/3 after the QUIC group has
> finsihed their mapping document. Is the intention to do another re-charter
> then? Should we then maybe just wait until we have a better plan before we say
> anything about this in ther httpbis charter?

The chairs discussed this and I thought we'd agreed on some text, but I see that hasn't made it into datatracker; Alexey?

> The timing doesn't seem to be
> optional for me here but I assume the recharter is coming up because H2 is
> basically done...?

We realised that the charter was pretty out-of-date, and this initiated before we had the discussion about maintenance of the QUIC HTTP documents.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:54:21 +0000

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The documents that refers to are the HTTP/1.1 document set, although 
> many of them will emerge as just "HTTP...".
> 
> 
> The chairs discussed this and I thought we'd agreed on some text, but I 
> see that hasn't made it into datatracker; Alexey?

I have updated the charter since. Mirja, can you double check charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01?

> We realised that the charter was pretty out-of-date, and this initiated 
> before we had the discussion about maintenance of the QUIC HTTP 
> documents.

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:08:53 +0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-httpbis-07-00: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think there is a reason to block the charter as currently proposed,
however, I have a couple of questions.

Then regarding the HTTP and QUIC part. I found it a bit weird and probably also
unecessary to mention review intentions in the charter. However, I guess we
need at some point to discuss what to do with HTTP/3 after the QUIC group has
finsihed their mapping document. Is the intention to do another re-charter
then? Should we then maybe just wait until we have a better plan before we say
anything about this in ther httpbis charter? The timing doesn't seem to be
optional for me here but I assume the recharter is coming up because H2 is
basically done...?