Ballot for charter-ietf-hpke
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-hpke-00-0 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments * "The working group may decide to apply any errata filed on RFC 9180." Above and beyond this I think the working group MUST decide the disposition of any and all filed errata, whether they're ultimately included or not. Note: I don't know that this needs a text change, just pointing out the obvious.
I agree with Erik's observation that the WG must work towards reducing the errata's held against the informational publication.
Hi, Thank you for sharing more background and context. That's really useful. I trust that some of the changes discussed in [1] will make it to the charter. I'm not reiterating those comments/proposed changes here. Cheers, Med [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hpke/6iKLXKWBmlG8BUhj6uXfGYcaQqE/
I agree with Éric that further clarity on text “identical behavior for any functionality” would be helpful to ensure future flexibility.
Just some minor comments: Expand some acronyms: KDF, KEM, ... Remove the examples for to-be-removed `(e.g., the Auth and AuthPSK modes)` as it is probably up to the WG to decide. `Differences between the Standards Track version of HPKE and the Informational version (RFC9180) should be minimized.` suggest to use "... documents should be minimized.". `must have identical behavior` is a very strict constraint as bugs/improvements/extensions cannot be worked on by the WG.