Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
Do I read correctly that the only change from the previous charter is to remove the paragraph about coordinating with TCPINC? If so, I'm not sure that change is important enough to justify rechartering, but I won't get in the way if other people agree with it.
Agree with Ben and Adam. I completely missed the subtleties of this change. The "or" in the following excerpt really don't help The following topics are out of scope for this Working Group: - Extension, modification, or creation of transport or security protocols What is out of scope: A, B, or maybe C or D? Not blocking this recharter, but please improve.
Since the point of this update is to add security analysis to the charter scope, would it make sense to specify how the WG plans to engage with the security area, as is typically done when there is overlap or coupling between work in different WGs? E.g., will the WG be seeking early review from the security area on relevant drafts?
It would be nice to see the goals of the WG include descriptions of security properties for the described protocols. I don't see any mention of security properties in comparison work for the WG. Can you propose some text to add to the charter? Thanks.
I don’t object the charter, but I don’t think it should be approved without an updated set of milestones.
I agree with Ben that it would be valuable to add text to the charter that explicitly says what is being added (e.g., that the WG will "include transport security in its analysis"), rather than simply removing the prohibition.