Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-regext-02-00: Block
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-regext/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am afraid that this charter should be rewritten in-depth before going to external review. The 4 first sentences can be rewritten in "Extensions to STD 69 and STD 95 may be registered for informational purposes as long as there is a published specification that has been reviewed by a designated expert(s)." And it is even unclear what are `registered for informational purposes`, are they in a IANA registry ? Then what is an informational IANA registry ? What is meant by "targeted for the IETF consensus" ? Is it to be published as an informational / standard track RFC ? or something else. The formatting is broken and makes the charter ambiguous (in other words "Lack of technical clarity on the content of work and deliverables"), e.g.: a) `The selection of extensions shall incorporate the following guidelines:` are the 2 lines below the guidelines ? If so, please use bulleted/ordered list. b) is `The working group may discuss or advise on these documents.` part of the above guidelines or just leading to the two bullets below ? The two bullets are normal IETF process, so there is no need to repeat them. `Possible work includes, but is not limited to the following topics` such an open scope (unbounded work item) is not allowed in a charter. In other words: "Lack of scope for what is clearly in-bounds versus things that should be explicitly forbidden" _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
