Hypertext Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-httpbis-08
Yes
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)
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 IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2012-09-06 for -06-00)
Unknown
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 IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-09-13 for -06-00)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Unknown