Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions
charter-ietf-cbor-03

Yes

(Barry Leiba)

No Objection

Roman Danyliw
Éric Vyncke
(Adam Roach)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Benjamin Kaduk)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Mirja Kühlewind)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2019-06-27 for -01-01) Sent 
I support Mirja's second DISCUSS item.  I'd add to it that the distinction between "Internet-wide" and "Narrow purpose" is also not clear to me.  In particular, I'm not sure why "Narrow purpose" couldn't also be published through the ISE.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2019-06-27 for -01-01) Not sent 
I second Alvaro's comments.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2019-06-24 for -01-01) Sent 
Nit: "a mechanism other that" should be "a mechanism other than".

"and add to a second edition of the specification if warranted" ... presumably this is in the re-charter because it *is* warranted.  I suggest removing "if warranted".

"The body of existing specifications that make use of CDDL is considered precious":  Awwwwwwwww...  :-)

"It is currently expected that this would be done using a Wiki of some type. This work would not be expected to be published by the IETF."  Yayyyyy!  Thanks.

Nit: that are either currently adopted by the working group, by other working groups, or as individual submissions" is not a parallel list.  Maybe, "that are currently adopted by the working group, are work items in other working groups, or exist as individual submissions."  Also, I suggest removing the paragraph break between this paragraph and the next.

Nit: "Internet wide specifications" needs a hyphen: "Internet-wide specifications".
Adam Roach Former IESG member
(was Block) No Objection
No Objection (for -01-03) Sent for earlier 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2019-06-26 for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I agree with Mirja's second point.

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2019-06-25 for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I have a couple of editorial suggestions:

(1) The charter talks about "using a DISPATCH like process".  While most people might have an idea of what that is, I think mentioning it is not necessary.

(2) The first category is:

   General purpose specifications that are expected to have broad usage: The
   working group will normally adopt and publish such proposals. Examples of
   proposals in this category are CBOR Sequence media type 
   (draft-bormann-cbor-sequence) and Error Indications tag 
   (draft-richter-cbor-error-tag).

It would be nice if the examples of WG adoption were adopted documents.  I think the description is enough -- let the WG decide if these are this type of documents.

(3) Similarly, in the third category... "An example of this might be portions of draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid..."  The tentative language is not great, even for an example.

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2019-06-26 for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I also agree with Mirja's second point, and with Alvaro's note that examples
of WG adoption work better when they are actually WG-adopted documents.

The enumeration of potential inputs to the DISPATCH-like process seems potentially
quite broad, though I suppose that need not translate to "approval" or adoption  by
the WG.

I found the wording confusing in some parts of the charter, such as "collect these
features", the treatment of CDDL evolution as a "sequence of editions", and what
makes an "Internet wide [sic]" specification.

   This work would not be expected to be published by the IETF.

"as an RFC", presumably?

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2019-06-26 for -01-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
Hello,

I have few comments:

* why only mention verified errata? what about "held for document update" type of errata? I also note there are 4 Reported errata. A more general sentence could be: "The CBOR working group will update RFC 7049 based on existing errata."

* I find "popular" a bit subjective. Is that really needed?

* s/a Full Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/

Thank you
-m

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            (was Block)
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2019-07-22 for -01-04)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
Thanks for addressing my block!