Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments
charter-ietf-ace-02
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
(for -00-06)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-05-15 for -00-01)
Unknown
We can work through current discussions and I believe we can resolve them while in IESG review. We can also update the proposed milestones.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-05-15 for -00-01)
Unknown
I think there's some good discussion ongoing and am fine with that being worked out during IETF review.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-13 for -00-01)
Unknown
Thanks, for addressing my substantive concerns.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-12 for -00-00)
Unknown
There is some lack of clarity in this charter about whether the group wants to standardize One Solution to Rule them All, or multiple solutions. It sounds mostly like one solution, except for the paragraph that begins "Existing authentication and authorization protocols will be used and re-applied ...." It would be good for the charter to clarify this.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-06)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-01)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-13 for -00-01)
Unknown
I would generally ask whether the requirements and use cases (r&uc) document needs to be output from the WG or can (at the WG's and AD's discretion) simply be an internal document that never gets published as an RFC (I don't think it needs to be), but the suggested milestones make me even more convinced that there is no need to publish the document: It's clear that the development of the protocol will be in parallel with the development of the r&uc. Given that, it's clear that the charter is not saying that the r&uc need to be nailed down before work can commence. So I say make the submission to the IESG and publication of the r&uc optional. No need for make-work if it turns out not to be interesting in the long run.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-15 for -00-01)
Unknown
I share the concerns of some other ADs that this charter is too broad. It's unclear to me what exactly they want to do here, and why all of the existing access control protocols are unsuitable for it. Nonetheless, I'm OK with this going out for review.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-01)
Unknown