Bit Indexed Explicit Replication
charter-ietf-bier-02
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-03 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
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 steering group member) Yes
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection