Ballot for charter-ietf-aipref
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Agreed with Roman on formatting issues.
I have some concerns on the word "preferences" not being what some people want it to mean (eg "disallow")
“A means of attaching or associating those preferences to content in IETF-defined protocols and formats, including but not limited to using Well-Known URIs (RFC 8615), Robots Exclusion Protocol (RFC 9309), and HTTP response header fields." A method for reconciling multiple expressions of preferences.” There are editorial or formatting issues. There is an extra quote mark after header field. The “A method for reconciling …” sentence doesn’t flow. “A standard track protocol specification to associate the expressed AI-related preferences to the IESG for publication” Given the vagueness of the text does this milestone imply that exactly one PS protocol specification will be produced? What protocols or formats will it cover?
Just some minor comments (hence preventing a strong YES): Even if "AI" is a well-known acronym, suggest to use "Artificial Intelligence" at least in the charter text (and possibly in the WG name). `AI model development, deployment, and use`, while I understand the "development" part (suggest using "training" ?), I wonder what is meant here about "deployment, use". `associating those preferences to content in IETF-defined protocols` it took me a while to parse the sentence correctly as I first read it as "content of the IETF-defined protocols". It may be my French bias that cause this misread of mine. `header fields."` suggest removing the extra " `IPTC and PLUS` as I am probably not the only one not aware of these groups/SDO, suggest expanding the acronyms. `Liaisons are intended to inform external bodies ` seems to indicate a one-way communication from IETF to other bodies and not listening to their feedback/requirements