Ballot for charter-ietf-dispatch
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I think this is ready to progress to external review. However, I invite people to pay attention to the thread that Harald started on the dispatch process in general: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4
Given this, "Options for handling new work include: "- By agreement with ART ADs, processing simple documents." and this: "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work. Specifically, DISPATCH will always opt to find a location for technical work; the only work that DISPATCH is not required to delegate (or defer, or reject) is administrative work such as IANA actions." If these are describing the same thing, I'd suggest replacing "simple" with "administrative", which I'm reading as more restrictive. Having "simple" being undefined in this context seems vulnerable to mischief ("of course, my document is simple, so it's within charter, right?"). If they aren't describing the same thing, I'd suggest defining "simple".
I received the necessary clarifications from both Barry and Ben during the IESG telechat. Thanks, Benoit ============================================================================= (*) Disclaimer: I've not been following RAI/ART work in the IETF and I don't know whether the DISPATCH process has been efficient or not. So I'll mainly make observations. I understand Harald's point, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4, When I read the charter, it's like an extra procedure, specific to ART. For example, if I want a BoF, I must first go to DISPATCH to get their approval? Same thing for AD-sponsored document? The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for new work in the ART area and identify, or help create, an appropriate venue for the work. Btw, no change here: this sentence is basically unchanged compared to the previous charter. In the past, I was told that DISPATCH was similar to the OPSAWG WG. Let me observe it's not. "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work", while OPSAWG might. From the OPSAWG charter: The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF. Obviously, redirecting work to existing WGs is also an OPSAWG task. And when the work is substantial, a new WG can even be created. Ex: EMAN in the past I prefer the OPSAWG approach (*).
A friendly amendment, if you're up for accepting it: I think a change along these lines would better reflect what we hope folks will be doing: OLD: 5. Ensuring that the new work considers security and privacy. NEW: 5. Ensuring that the new work considers and aims to improve security and privacy. My reason is that while we definitely do want to consider security and privacy, I think we do have consensus to try to make those better whenever we can, and to never just say "yeah, we thought about it, but we're doing nothing." I think it may be better if we can say that the DISPATCH charter calls for improvement to handle cases where folks are a bit reluctant to change a piece of work they bring to the IETF that hasn't done such a good job on security or privacy.