Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME
charter-ietf-lamps-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Ben Campbell Yes

Alissa Cooper Yes

Benjamin Kaduk Yes

Comment (2018-06-07 for -02-00)
No email
send info
It looks like we didn't note last time that:

% 1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
% described in RFC 6844.  Implementation experience has demonstrated an
% ambiguity in the handling of CNAME and DNAME records during discovery
% in RFC 6844, and subsequent discussion has suggested that a different
% discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in that approach.

is potentially ambiguous about "that approach" -- it's the RFC 6844
one that we want to fix, not the new one, of course.

Eric Rescorla Yes

Adam Roach Yes

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

Comment (2018-06-01 for -02-00)
No email
send info
I'm a No Objection, but I had comments on this charter when we balloted for External Review, and it looks like this is the same version that I commented on. 

Thread started at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/hvivetNqR4T4xfEtSsOKd4auw18.

Do the right thing, of course.

Spencer

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-06-06 for -02-00)
No email
send info
“Said it before, and I’ll say it again...”

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection