Hypertext Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-httpbis-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06-02 and is now closed.

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

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-09-26 for -06-03)
No email
send info
Thanks for adding the requested clarifications about 2818bis.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-27 for -06-03)
No email
send info
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"?

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-03)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-04)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-27 for -06-04)
No email
send info
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.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-02)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06-02)
No email
send info