Skip to main content

Domain Boundaries
charter-ietf-dbound-01

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)

No Record


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2015-01-21 for -00-01) Unknown
The Secretariat should please include the Internet Directorate <int-dir@ietf.org> in the external review distribution.  Thanks.

It is my intent to move the "additional background information" section to the working group wiki when the chartering is complete.  It remains here for now, to make it easier for reviewers.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2015-01-22 for -00-01) Unknown
It'd be great if this worked out and produced useful stuff.
That (getting started) is IMO more important than having
the best charter text ever, esp. for the external review
stage. I hope we quickly resolve any wording things (even
without reaching perfection) and shoot this out.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-21 for -00-01) Unknown
I agree with the suggestion of removing the additional information section at the end. Add one sentence to the body of the charter about the PSL if you want, but having that whole section in the charter seems unnecessary.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block) No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-21 for -00-01) Unknown
When this charter goes for external review, we should ensure that some DNS expertise gets involved in the review.  That can be accomplished by asking the Internet Directorate for an explicit review.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-22 for -00-01) Unknown
Thanks for already agreeing to reduce the text by removing the additional background and addresses Spencer's concern clearly in the text of the charter for related domains.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-21 for -00-01) Unknown
Like others, I'd really rather see the additional background info removed (and indeed, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the main body could also be removed). But if you insist on external review with it, I will not balk.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
(was Block) No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-13 for -00-01) Unknown
I had one suggestion. This charter is fairly chatty (which is fine), including examples, but after reading it, I wasn't sure whether I'd be able to tell whether ibm.com and ibm.co.uk were related. 

I think the answer is "yes", but the charter might be clearer if it used an example like that.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-01-22 for -00-01) Unknown
I would like to see the working group start from a narrow scope and recharter if the scope needs widening, as Richard has suggested.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Record
No Record (2015-01-21 for -00-01) Unknown
Well done for moving the additional information out of the main body of the charter text.

How about going one step further and deleting all of the "Additional Background Information"? I know it is always hard to delete text, but this discussion belongs in an I-D not here.