Ballot for charter-ietf-geojson
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
One readability improvement. So many RFC numbers I have to lookup, in this charter: 5870, 7464, 3693, 6280. Sorry I don't know them all by heart. A good convention is name + RFC, such as "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159]" I guess it's a short-lived WG, right? Two deliverables and then closed, right? Would be worth mentioning IMO. In the milestones, that would be fine.
is the specification, intended (as the draft is today) to remain informational. and is there therefore any additional work related to the specification itslef other than publishing it to be done in the IETF?
please fix last sentence