Hypertext Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-httpbis-08
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06-02 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2012-09-26 for -06-03)
Unknown
Thanks for adding the requested clarifications about 2818bis.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-09-27 for -06-03)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-03)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-09-27 for -06-04)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-02)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-02)
Unknown