Hypertext Transfer Protocol

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07-02 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2018-12-03 for -07-03)
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.

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2018-12-06 for -07-03)
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."

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection