Hi ! I would love to have an interim. These are the things that I personally would like to discuss: 1) what could we now do to foster deployment of this? 2) is anyone really planning to write an http mapping document, ever? this would have to be (and should be easy for!) someone with the right implementation experience……. ahem… 3) like 2), but s/http/quic
If the WG closes, where else could 2) and 3) happen? Does this relate to item 1) somehow? If everyone just shrugs their shoulders to all of these questions (as I do), I guess this could be a short interim followed by closing the group. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Michael > On Mar 15, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Reese Enghardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear TAPS, > > As we are moving towards finishing the three core documents, the next step > will be to recharter or conclude. > > We have talked about possible further milestones related to mapping > documents, and we have a few related issues on the Github > (https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Amappings). > > > However, we have not seen much activity on this topic since IETF 113, and we > have no related currently active documents. > > I wanted to give you a heads-up that, given this state, the chairs are > wondering if it'll be time to conclude TAPS once the core documents have made > their way to the RFC Editor, unless we see evidence of substantial interest > and activity regarding further milestones. > > Nothing has been decided yet, and we will be happy to discuss this question. > > TAPS is not meeting at IETF 116, but we can consider scheduling a virtual > interim meeting or a WG meeting at IETF 117 if we have content for a fruitful > discussion. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Best, > Reese > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
