Re: Proposed Charter Text

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:28 -0800, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> Looks fine. 
> 
> Since you've made broader changes, some nits on the rest of the text:
> 
> - "Upon completion of that	mapping, additional protocols may be added by
> updating this charter to include	them, or working elsewhere." This
> sentence does not make sense anymore. What is that "or working elsewhere"
> supposed to be adding? Should this phrase be dropped?

"working elsewhere" as in other WGs. I still think it is correct, but lets
clarify that other WGs may work on such mappings.

> 
> - The fifth focus area should be described _after_ the paragraph starting with
> "Current network management practices", since that para is related to the
> fourth focus area.

It was Mark that drafted this change. But, I don't understand why that paragraph
should have specific relationship with the 4th focus area of extensions or even
multipaht specifically. I see it as a general requirement for the protocol to
consider hwat is mentioned here. Thus, I think the move is a good oen. 


> - In the fifth focus area, "the Working Group will delivery a mechanism to
> assist load balancers in their handling of QUIC."
>   First, a nit: "delivery" --> "deliver".

Will fix. 

>   Second, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't remember that we agreed to deliver a
> "mechanism" for this. A more inclusive phrasing here might be "will deliver
> solutions for load balancers to handle QUIC traffic."

I would appreciate more feedback on this. Yes, a solution may not require a
mechanism. I guess you envision simply that some guidance on how a load balancer
can use what already exists rather than charter a requirement for something that
is a protocol change? 


> 
> - Final nit that has already been noted, "the QUIC mapping for HTTP/2". If we
> are going to touch that text, let's change it to "the QUIC mapping for HTTP".
> I agree with Mike that we've used HTTP/2 as the effective API that we're
> building to, but I think that purpose has been served. I don't we're in danger
> of veering way off-course on the HTTP mapping from HTTP/2, if only for
> pragmatic reasons.

I am fine with just writing HTTP in first bullet and in that last paragraph.
However, I like to avoid having to rewrite the whole third focus area paragraph.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------