WebTransport
charter-ietf-webtrans-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-02 and is now closed.

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

Barry Leiba Yes

(Adam Roach) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2020-03-04 for -00-02)
No email
send info
It's left pretty implicit that this work expects to tie into HTTP and use QUIC, but perhaps we don't need to constrain ourselves in that manner.

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2020-03-05 for -00-02)
I agree with Ben that it would seem appropriate to mention HTTP somewhere in the charter.

I'm also a bit worried that this work is so closely coupled to the work on the WebTransport API of another SoD that is further still in an unclear state. But I also don't have a good solution to that. Probably correct to start with requirement in this case...

I would like to see the relationship of this new group to taps clarified in the charter!

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2020-03-03 for -00-02)
No email
send info
This version of the Charter is much better than -00.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-03-02 for -00-02)
This looks like an interesting work to be done. Just as non-blocking comments:

1) the milestones are really aggressive (and perhaps unrealistic)

2) when talking about "owners of the WebTransport API" this would be worth adding a reference to those owners.

Good luck and fair winds to this potential new WG

-éric

Magnus Westerlund No Objection