Ballot for charter-ietf-webtrans
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-02 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
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
This version of the Charter is much better than -00.
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.
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!