Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: (with DISCUSS)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 16 June 2022 06:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B181C15AAE3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2G9P6C9rZlv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D6A9C15AAEA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1o1jBJ-0005eO-CX for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 06:40:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 06:40:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1o1jBJ-0005eO-CX@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <noreply@ietf.org>) id 1o1jBH-0005dV-OD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 06:40:39 +0000
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <noreply@ietf.org>) id 1o1jBG-0000le-42 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 06:40:39 +0000
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF9CC14F6E7; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, mnot@mnot.net, mnot@mnot.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <165536162632.60875.6337226745051009018@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:40:26 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.223.129.194; envelope-from=noreply@ietf.org; helo=mail.ietf.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1o1jBG-0000le-42 58a5c6b6d97797484b51210fbad2605c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: (with DISCUSS)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/165536162632.60875.6337226745051009018@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40116
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05: Discuss 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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpbis-binary-message-05 cc @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. And I really mean it even when balloting a blocking DISCUSS because it will be useful. BTW, I sincerely hate to be process-focused and I hope to stand corrected quickly. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points, which may be resolved during the IESG formal telechat. Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Does it fit HTTPBIS charter ? While I think that this document is useful (even if I have doubts about standards track rather than informational as for the expired PCAP I-D in OPSAWG), I fail to see how this document fits the HTTPBIS charter. The only potential way is at the end of the charter: ``` # Other HTTP-Related Work 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. ``` But I do not see any related milestone to this document. Moving this document to AD sponsored is probably the right way. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
- Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-binar… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-b… Francesca Palombini
- Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-b… Francesca Palombini