Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-alto-04-01: 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-alto/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see a need for protocol maintenance and potential extensions based on the deployment experience. However, for future protocol usage I don't think there is a need to a working group. This actually even puts doubts about potential direction that the working group will take, hence not a deterministic focus or item that the working group can deliver on. I mean to say, the future discussions can be separated and might result in - ALTO is not a good fit for the future usages. Also, as far as I understand ALTO uses the HTTP semantics hence the h2/h3 adoption seems like a implementation choice on the ALTO server. Should there any issues on that adoption, that should be covered in the maintenance and extension bullet based on current deployment. Having said that, I wont block this rechartering but would suggest to rethink about the focuses set on the charter. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
