Bit Indexed Explicit Replication
charter-ietf-bier-02
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-03 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-03-04 for -00-04)
Unknown
I fully support the formation of this WG. I think that the requirement for independent and interoperable implementations before the publication of an Experimental RFC is harsh.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-03-03 for -00-03)
Unknown
I'm not a big fan of specifying in the charter that the WG will "produce a document" for anything that is not protocol, nor do I think it's a good idea to specify the number of particular documents a WG will produce at all: WGs often discover that they should combine or split different pieces of the protocol, and I think that's almost always a management task for the chairs and the WG, not something in the "contract" with the IESG and the rest of the community. For non-protocol documents, it's often turns out better to publish these as an updatable wiki instead of trying to finalize 'the one true RFC', and I certainly wouldn't want to constrain them to an "Informational RFC" in particular. I'm not going to stand in the way if you think that this particular group of folks would best be guided by specifying these things and having them written into the charter, but I did want to voice my concern.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-03-03 for -00-03)
Unknown
I share Pete's thoughts about using a wiki for at least some of the non-protocol work in this charter, with the additional thought that I'd hope some of that work starts way earlier than "after we have deployment experience", which makes perfect sense if you're publishing RFCs but seems to get in the way of starting wiki entries unnecessarily. But as we seem to to repeat consistently when the IESG has these conversations, there are all kinds of reasons (ranging from good reasons to bad reasons) to publish non-protocol work as RFCs, and the ADs need to do what makes sense for the community they're serving ... just make good choices :-)
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown