IPv6 Maintenance
charter-ietf-6man-04

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03-03 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -03-03)
No email
send info
I agree with the other comments related to the empowering of 6man in cross WG matters.

"and may determine that" should really be "and may recommend to the IESG that"

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-21 for -03-03)
No email
send info
I agree with Barry's comment. 

I don't have any concerns if the interaction with other working groups as described happens via ADs, but the current text seems just a bit too empowering.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -03-05)
No email
send info
The second paragraph gives the working group authority to block documents from other working groups.  I have no objection to the intent here, but as a process matter it strikes me that only consensus of the IESG can do that (there are other odd variations on that, but, basically...).

Perhaps the paragraph should add something to make it clear that it takes that action through the responsible AD?

UPDATE: -05 takes care of this nicely; thanks.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-23 for -03-05)
No email
send info
In theory, I have no problem with the idea that 6man can block another document. In effect, the chair of 6man can say, "6man has looked at this document and does not have consensus that the following issues have been properly addressed...". Assuming those issues are real, it would be an appealable action for any other chair (or for that matter, an AD or the IESG) to progress a document with outstanding unanswered objections from any group or individual, not just 6man. If the intention of the original text was that 6man could effectively put an "IOU" DISCUSS on a document ("6man think there might be issues here, so we want more time to review"), or that 6man could not in the end be declared "in the rough", that would be bogus. But I didn't read the original text that way. All that said, I have no particular objection to the current text. I'd rather it said "6man working group consensus does not exist on those documents" instead of "6man working group consensus is needed before the any of those documents can progress for publication", but the latter pretty much has the same effect as the former.

A bit of copyediting, because we don't have an RFC Editor to do so on charters:

   The working group may, at its discretion, review any document
   produced in another working group that extends or modifies the IPv6
   protocol and, in consultation with the responsible AD, may recommend
   to the IESG that 6man working group consensus is needed before any of
   those documents can progress for publication.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -03-03)
No email
send info
In support of Barry's comment.

(Sean Turner) No Objection