(I apologize for not reading all 62 messages in this thread first before replying. Damned vacations.) On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I appreciate the charter's use of "HTTPS" as a signal that these are > intended to be TLS-protected HTTP sessions. I note, however, that there is > considerable ambiguity still present. HTTPS can mean HTTP 1.1 over TLS, > HTTP/2 over TLS, and it may mean HTTP over QUIC at some point soon (in some > deployments it already means that). I think that this is not just fine, but correct. I would object to a change. We should target HTTP, not a specific version of it. > While the working group may, of course, change that to > support HTTP 1.1 and/or QUIC, it might be useful for the charter to indicate > which of these is potentially in scope. I would assume, from the title, that it does not matter which of these protocols is used, therefore the HTTP working group is the primary point of collaboration. > If the community is sure now that > HTTP over QUIC is in scope, for example, having that noted in the charter by > adding the QUIC working group to list of working groups to consult would be > useful. If the QUIC working group produces something that is incapable of carrying HTTP semantics, then they have failed. Badly. Similarly, if this proposed working group produces a protocol that relies on semantics of a particular version of HTTP such that it cannot be used with QUIC, then they too have failed. I don't see any need to consult with QUIC specifically. I predict that we can use informal channels, since many of the same people will be in the two rooms. > [...] The working group could, of course, > change that, but it would seriously shift the direction of its input > document to do so). If we do that, then we are not meeting the charter as stated. >> Apr 2018 - [...] > > I admire the optimism in this. It was originally Dec 2017, so this is about 3 times as long.