Subject: [Webpush] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-webpush-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:00:57 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-webpush-00-01: Yes

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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-webpush/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the third paragraph, it seems like instead of "The work may describe a
protocol", you want "The work will describe a protocol". Am I
misunderstanding something?

I am still concerned that not chartering this work to use an HTTP-based
protocol is inviting unproductive discussions when the WG gets started. I
do note that Paul Hoffman raised the identical concern in his review of
the charter. This is, IMO, just inviting a standard APP rathole. That
said, if you really want to leave the choice of base protocol up to a
consensus discussion in the WG, I'm not going stand in the way.