Discussion:
Adam Roach's No Objection on charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach
2018-11-20 23:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-httpbis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# HTTP/1.1 Revision
This seems a little confusing, as the HTTP/1.1 revision has already happened.
Isn't this more like HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 maintenance?
* Incorporate errata
* Address ambiguities
* Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
specification * Clarify conformance requirements * Remove known ambiguities
where they affect interoperability * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
* Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and also
unduly affect interoperability * Where necessary, add implementation advice
It looks like this list got wrapped somehow. Perhaps include blank lines between
bullets?
The Working Group may define extensions and other documents related to HTTP as
work items, provided that: * They are generic; i.e., not specific to one
application using HTTP. Note that Web browsing by definition is a generic use.
* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the item
and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and * The
Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones.
Same issue with bullet wrapping as above
Alexey Melnikov
2018-11-21 11:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Roach
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-httpbis-07-01: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-httpbis/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# HTTP/1.1 Revision
This seems a little confusing, as the HTTP/1.1 revision has already happened.
Isn't this more like HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 maintenance?
No, the intent of this section is to do HTTP/1.1 revision. I will attempt to clarify this.
Post by Adam Roach
* Incorporate errata
* Address ambiguities
* Fix editorial problems which have led to misunderstandings of the
specification * Clarify conformance requirements * Remove known ambiguities
where they affect interoperability * Clarify existing methods of extensibility
* Remove or deprecate those features that are not widely implemented and also
unduly affect interoperability * Where necessary, add implementation advice
It looks like this list got wrapped somehow. Perhaps include blank lines between
bullets?
This looks like a tool problem! Each item is on a separate line when editing text.
Post by Adam Roach
The Working Group may define extensions and other documents related to HTTP as
work items, provided that: * They are generic; i.e., not specific to one
application using HTTP. Note that Web browsing by definition is a generic use.
* The Working Group Chairs judge that there is consensus to take on the item
and believe that it will not interfere with the work described above, and * The
Area Director approves the addition and add corresponding milestones.
Same issue with bullet wrapping as above
As above.

Loading...