DNS-SD Extensions
charter-ietf-dnssd-01
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-05 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10 for -00-05)
Unknown
That's a lot of words! Not a required change, but... I think that the two paragraphs before the subheading "Working Group Description" belong after the subheading. I would also be inclined to reverse their order.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10 for -00-05)
Unknown
The deliverables are correctly covered in the "proposed milestones" section. They should not appear in the charter text, unless there is a very good reason.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10 for -00-05)
Unknown
I continue to believe that the Deliverables section is unnecessary; the Goals section gives plenty of specifics. I just worry about people saying stupid things like, "The charter says 3 documents, so splitting one of the documents in two is out-of-charter" or "The charter says Informational, but really this is more like an applicability statement or a BCP and therefore we need to re-charter". I say leave the specific deliverables up to the WG and let the Goals put the appropriate limits.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-10 for -00-05)
Unknown
I'm not blocking but I think it'd be good if the charter made some mention of security and privacy, in order to head off potential discusses on documents later. Doesn't need much, but maybe something like: "Extending discovery beyond current cases can expose discovered devices/services in ways that can be problematic for security or privacy. The WG will consider such issues and attempt to define appropriate mitigations."
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown