Hypertext Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-httpbis-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-03-10
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini from Barry Leiba |
2019-03-27
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba from Alexey Melnikov |
2018-12-07
|
08 | Amy Vezza | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-08.txt |
2018-12-07
|
07-05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved from External review |
2018-12-07
|
07-05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the charter |
2018-12-07
|
07-05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-12-07
|
07-05 | Amy Vezza | WG action text was changed |
2018-12-06
|
07-05 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-05.txt |
2018-12-06
|
07-04 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-04.txt |
2018-12-06
|
07-03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I guess it is actually not necessary to say the following explicitly: "* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to … [Ballot comment] I guess it is actually not necessary to say the following explicitly: "* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the item and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and * The Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones." |
2018-12-06
|
07-03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-12-06
|
07-03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-12-05
|
07-03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-12-05
|
07-03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-12-05
|
07-03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-12-05
|
07-03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-12-05
|
07-03 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-12-03
|
07-03 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-12-03
|
07-03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] This revision looks "Yes"-able, but of course, I have questions ... but they're mostly for the ART ADs. I'm somewhat surprised that a … [Ballot comment] This revision looks "Yes"-able, but of course, I have questions ... but they're mostly for the ART ADs. I'm somewhat surprised that a revision of HTTP/1.1 is called out, but a similar effort for HTTP/2 is not (and maybe more surprised because HTTP/3 extensions are mentioned). I should just assume that if work on HTTP/2 turns out to be necessary, the working group would be rechartered, maybe? I see that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis/ is in WGLC now, so maybe it's not worth mentioning, but I'm getting a sense that ART and TSV are going to be having more conversations about the evolution of transport that involve HTTP as an application substrate. TSVAREA gave over our entire agenda at IETF 103 for topics in this space. It might be that the ART ADs would not have those conversations in HTTPbis, or would be part of a later recharter, but I did want to ask if they should be in charter for HTTPbis now, since we're balloting on an update. And a nit - if "The Working Group will refine the "core" HTTP document set (RFC 7230-RFC 7235)" actually means "revise" that document set, I'd suggest saying so. |
2018-12-03
|
07-03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-11-27
|
07-03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-11-26
|
07-03 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-03.txt |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2018-12-06 from 2018-11-21 |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready for external review" ballot |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to External review from Internal review |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG new work message text was changed |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Alexey Melnikov | Added milestone "Submit the Key HTTP Response Header Field for consideration as a Proposed Standard", due May 2016, from current group milestones |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I have no new comments to add that are not in other ballot positions already, but specifically call out the HTTP/1.1 vs. HTTP/2 … [Ballot comment] I have no new comments to add that are not in other ballot positions already, but specifically call out the HTTP/1.1 vs. HTTP/2 question as being confusing |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-11-21
|
07-02 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-02.txt |
2018-11-21
|
07-01 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I have a few comments, but nothing worth blocking over at this stage: - Why the scare quotes around "core"? # HTTP/1.1 Revision, … [Ballot comment] I have a few comments, but nothing worth blocking over at this stage: - Why the scare quotes around "core"? # HTTP/1.1 Revision, 2nd paragraph: What is the "they" in "since their publication"? Just the http/1.1 docs, or does it include http/2? The heading suggests the former, but the mention of http/2 confuses me. - Will the refinements to the "core" documents be in the form of updates or bis drafts? If the latter, can we constrain "Fix editorial problems" to "_only_ those which have led to misunderstandings" (or maybe "are likely to")? I would like to discourage the fairly common kind of "editorial fix" that involve new authors adapting text to their personal writing styles. They tend to make bis drafts diffs really hard to review. |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] > # HTTP/1.1 Revision This seems a little confusing, as the HTTP/1.1 revision has already happened. Isn't this more like HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 … [Ballot comment] > # HTTP/1.1 Revision This seems a little confusing, as the HTTP/1.1 revision has already happened. Isn't this more like HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 maintenance? > * Incorporate errata > * Address ambiguities > * Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the > specification * Clarify conformance requirements * Remove known ambiguities > where they affect interoperability * Clarify existing methods of extensibility > * Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and also > unduly affect interoperability * Where necessary, add implementation advice It looks like this list got wrapped somehow. Perhaps include blank lines between bullets? > 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 believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and * The > Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones. Same issue with bullet wrapping as above |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I appreciate the addition of QUIC-related work to this charter. I'm sympathetic to Mirja's comments about intentions, including her comment on not-optimal-timing. At … [Ballot comment] I appreciate the addition of QUIC-related work to this charter. I'm sympathetic to Mirja's comments about intentions, including her comment on not-optimal-timing. At a minimum, as I mentioned during discussions at IETF 103, I note that the current QUIC charter calls out HTTP/2, and if that's not what QUIC is going to call their deliverable (as per this charter), it would be nice to update the QUIC charter to reflect the new name. Keeping in mind that HTTPbis and QUIC currently share one co-chair, and that this might not always be true, you might consider a couple of "good fences make good neighbors" edits, as OLD The Working Group will review the QUIC Working Group's documents regarding the use of HTTP over the transport protocol they define, providing feedback and collaborating where necessary. NEW Upon request from the QUIC Working Group, the HTTPbis Working Group will review the QUIC Working Group's documents regarding the use of HTTP over the transport protocol they define, providing feedback and collaborating where necessary. END and OLD Once the QUIC Working Group publishes the expression of HTTP semantics in QUIC (HTTP/3), this Working Group will maintain and develop extensions for that protocol as necessary. This includes ancillary specifications (e.g. QPACK). NEW Once the QUIC Working Group publishes the expression of HTTP semantics in QUIC (HTTP/3), the HTTPbis Working Group will maintain and develop extensions for HTTP/3 as necessary. This includes ancillary specifications (e.g. QPACK). END And I notice that this is the first mention of HTTP/3 in the revised charter. Perhaps that's worth a sentence, on its own? |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Any milestones?? |
2018-11-20
|
07-01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-11-19
|
07-01 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-11-12
|
07-01 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01.txt |
2018-11-09
|
07-00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I don't think there is a reason to block the charter as currently proposed, however, I have a couple of questions. First an … [Ballot comment] I don't think there is a reason to block the charter as currently proposed, however, I have a couple of questions. First an editorial one: should it be "HTTP/2 Revision" instead of "HTTP/1.1 Revision", or maybe just "HTTP Revision(s)"? 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...? |
2018-11-09
|
07-00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-10-26
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | WG action text was changed |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | WG review text was changed |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | WG review text was changed |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Ready for external review" ballot |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | Telechat date has been changed to 2018-11-21 from 2012-09-27 |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | The charter was out of date, as a lot of work item were completed (e.g. HTTP/2 or initial set of RFCs revising HTTP/1.1) and some … The charter was out of date, as a lot of work item were completed (e.g. HTTP/2 or initial set of RFCs revising HTTP/1.1) and some new ones need adding. |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved |
2018-10-23
|
07-00 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07-00.txt |
2018-01-30
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov from Barry Leiba |
2012-10-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-07.txt |
2012-10-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved from IESG review |
2012-10-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the charter |
2012-10-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-10-02
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Ready for external review" ballot |
2012-10-02
|
06-06 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2012-10-02
|
06-05 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2012-10-02
|
06-05 | Cindy Morgan | WG action text was changed |
2012-10-02
|
06-05 | Cindy Morgan | Moved milestones from charter text to milestone tool so that they don't show up twice. |
2012-10-02
|
06-06 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-06.txt |
2012-09-27
|
06-05 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-05.txt |
2012-09-27
|
06-04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I plan to clear this on the call. I would like us to seriously consider adding the bit suggested by Henrik (or was … [Ballot comment] I plan to clear this on the call. I would like us to seriously consider adding the bit suggested by Henrik (or was it the W3C or some subdivision thereof?): To the paragraph: Work will begin using draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 as a starting point; proposals are to be expressed in terms of changes to that document. Note that consensus is required both for changes to the document and anything that remains in the document. Adding the following: In particular, because something is in the initial document does not imply that there is consensus around the feature or how it is specified. Further, as the deliverable of the WG is HTTP/2.0 there is no consideration of preserving backwards compatibility with the initial starting point. Given the number of non-usual-suspects that are involved in this effort, I think making this point crystal clear is helpful: Preserving backwards compatibility with SPDY is a non-goal, and consensus (i.e., no sustainable objections) needs to be achieved for all current parts of the document. |
2012-09-27
|
06-04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick by Cindy Morgan |
2012-09-27
|
06-04 | Cindy Morgan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Block by Cindy Morgan |
2012-09-27
|
06-04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-09-27
|
06-04 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-04.txt |
2012-09-27
|
06-03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I guess the final sentence is ambiguous (or open to misinterpretation) > Additionally, the Working Group will not start work on any extensions … [Ballot comment] I guess the final sentence is ambiguous (or open to misinterpretation) > Additionally, the Working Group will not start work on any extensions > that are specific to HTTP/2.0 until that work is completed. Which is "that work"? |
2012-09-27
|
06-03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-09-27
|
06-03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot block] I plan to clear this on the call. I would like us to seriously consider adding the bit suggested by Henrik (or was … [Ballot block] I plan to clear this on the call. I would like us to seriously consider adding the bit suggested by Henrik (or was it the W3C or some subdivision thereof?): To the paragraph: Work will begin using draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 as a starting point; proposals are to be expressed in terms of changes to that document. Note that consensus is required both for changes to the document and anything that remains in the document. Adding the following: In particular, because something is in the initial document does not imply that there is consensus around the feature or how it is specified. Further, as the deliverable of the WG is HTTP/2.0 there is no consideration of preserving backwards compatibility with the initial starting point. Given the number of non-usual-suspects that are involved in this effort, I think making this point crystal clear is helpful: Preserving backwards compatibility with SPDY is a non-goal, and consensus (i.e., no sustainable objections) needs to be achieved for all current parts of the document. |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Thanks for adding the requested clarifications about 2818bis. |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Sean Turner | Ballot comment text updated for Sean Turner |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Thanks for adding the requested clarity about 2818bis. |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-09-26
|
06-03 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-03.txt |
2012-09-25
|
06-02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-09-25
|
06-02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-09-25
|
06-02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-09-25
|
06-02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-09-25
|
06-02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-09-24
|
06-02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-09-23
|
06-02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-09-18
|
06-02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-09-18
|
06-02 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-09-27 from 2012-09-13 |
2012-09-18
|
06-02 | Cindy Morgan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-09-18
|
06-02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG review from Internal review |
2012-09-18
|
06-02 | Cindy Morgan | WG review text was changed |
2012-09-13
|
06-02 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-02.txt |
2012-09-13
|
06-01 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-01.txt |
2012-09-13
|
06-00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I think it's a good thing this is headed for external review so I don't want to block it going out, but I … [Ballot comment] I think it's a good thing this is headed for external review so I don't want to block it going out, but I do have a concern about scope/work items. I'm concerned about what's in the note that follows: Explicitly out-of-scope items include: * Specifying the use of alternate transport-layer protocols. Note that it is expected that the Working Group will define how the protocol is used with the TLS Protocol. If that's HTTP Over TLS (RFC 2818) bis, then I think we've got an issue. RFC 2818 was a TLS WG item and I know at least two people that feel that any updates to that RFC ought to go through the TLS WG. Obviously, coordination is key here so it's not like I'd be done in a vacuum if the TLS WG produced a 2818bis. |
2012-09-13
|
06-00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Block |
2012-09-13
|
06-00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-09-13
|
06-00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot block] So I'm not sure if I'm supposed to block on this or just let it go, so I went with the heavy handed … [Ballot block] So I'm not sure if I'm supposed to block on this or just let it go, so I went with the heavy handed approach and can change on/before the call if I got this wrong. I think it's a good thing this is headed for external review so I don't want to block it going out, but I do have a concern about scope/work items. I'm concerned about what's in the note that follows: Explicitly out-of-scope items include: * Specifying the use of alternate transport-layer protocols. Note that it is expected that the Working Group will define how the protocol is used with the TLS Protocol. If that's HTTP Over TLS (RFC 2818) bis, then I think we've got an issue. RFC 2818 was a TLS WG item and I know at least two people that feel that any updates to that RFC ought to go through the TLS WG. Obviously, coordination is key here so it's not like I'd be done in a vacuum if the TLS WG produced a 2818bis. |
2012-09-13
|
06-00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-09-12
|
06-00 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-09-12
|
06-00 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-09-12
|
06-00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-09-12
|
06-00 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-09-12
|
06-00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-09-11
|
06-00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-09-11
|
06-00 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-09-10
|
06-00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-09-10
|
06-00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-09-09
|
06-00 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] The previous recharter of httpbis involved preparation for selection of HTTP 2.0 candidate technology. The WG has made their selections, and this recharter … [Ballot comment] The previous recharter of httpbis involved preparation for selection of HTTP 2.0 candidate technology. The WG has made their selections, and this recharter reflects that. Essentially, the entire "2.0" section of the charter is changed here. I think this does need to go out for external review, because of the major change involved in having selected the 2.0 technology. |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-09-13 |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | WG action text was changed |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | WG review text was changed |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | Created "Ready for external review" ballot |
2012-09-06
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review |
2012-09-05
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2012-09-05
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | The previous recharter of httpbis involved preparation for selection of HTTP 2.0 candidate technology. The WG has made their selections, and this recharter reflects that. … The previous recharter of httpbis involved preparation for selection of HTTP 2.0 candidate technology. The WG has made their selections, and this recharter reflects that. Essentially, the entire "2.0" section of the charter is changed here. |
2012-09-05
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Informal IESG review from Approved |
2012-09-05
|
06-00 | Barry Leiba | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06-00.txt |
2012-04-26
|
06 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-06.txt |
2012-04-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-05.txt |
2012-03-18
|
04 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-04.txt |
2010-09-27
|
03 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-03.txt |
2009-08-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-02.txt |
2007-10-18
|
01 | (System) | New version available: charter-ietf-httpbis-01.txt |