Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
A nit: "These include in the following:" has a superfluous "in", I think.
I made some comments on the earlier version; these have been addressed -- thanks Alexey / the charter authors. Looks good to me.
I do not object to the actually proposed work. But I would prefer this not to be open ended. It has been my experience that groups kept open just in case future work might appear tend in the long run to loose the interest of the experts that should pay attention to such new work. I prefer the mini-work group model for that sort of thing. But I appear to be in the minority on this point, so I will not get in the way of chartering. Do I read the last paragraph correctly to give guidance to _other_ WGs? That seems somewhat...aspirational :-)
The charter has several clearly in-scope things and several clearly out-of-scope things. However, POP (RFC 1939) is conspicuous by its absence. Please add it to either the list of things that the WG is allowed to work on or the list of things that it is not.