Hypertext Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-httpbis-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-09-06 for -06-00)
No email
send info
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.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-13 for -06-00)
No email
send info
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.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-00)
No email
send info