Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Barry Leiba (was Block) Yes
Comment (2013-02-22 for -00-02)
I absolutely think this working group should be chartered. Thanks for sorting out my blocking issues. Version -00-02 also handles all my non-blocking comments.
(Pete Resnick) (was Block) Yes
Comment (2013-02-21 for -00-01)
Looks good to go. A few non-blocking comments: Is there any reason for any of the output of this WG to be Informational? Shouldn't it just be 2 x Standards Track and N x Experimental? If we can figure out something to say in the charter about how the Experimental documents should "run the experiments", that'd be great. Otherwise, let's figure out something to tell them when the WG gets going. I was shot down when I suggest mentioning PRECIS in the charter. At least mention it to the WG.
(Sean Turner) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
Comment (2013-02-21 for -00-00)
I don't believe that we had consensus on whether or not the goals/milestones section is part of the charter (this was discussed at the last IETF). However, I personally find this information useful, to understand the milestones, and to clearly express if a document should be standards track or informational. It's preferable to have those discussions at the charter discussion time.
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Record
Comment (2013-02-19 for -00-00)
This "No Record" is really a recuse.