Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: 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-ipsecme/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't object to this proposed charter going for internal review, but do have one question. When looking at some of the work items, I see "A possible starting point is draft-yeung-g-ikev2" (nit, missing closing period) "draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp and draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension are expected to be good starting points for ESP compression." "draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compression and raft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compact are good starting point for IKEv2 compression." (nit, should be "starting points") "draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes could be used as a starting point for this item." If you're using different language to convey a nuance, that would be fine (I'm missing it, but I miss things). If you're saying the same thing in all four cases, I'd suggest using the same phrasing in each case. so working group chairs and participants aren't trying to figure out whether "possible starting point" and "could be used as a starting point" are the same as "expected to be good starting points" and "are good starting points". I think I see "A possible starting point is" in most charters that point to individual drafts, which lets the working group decide whether to adopt that proposal or work on a different approach, but do the right thing, of course. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
