Ballot for charter-ietf-masque
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Some nits: - Is it a "and" or a "or" in "...is not possible ***and*** can apply..." ? - Unsure what is meant by "migration" in "...multiplexed streams, migration,..." - To exhibit my lack of understanding, should the first "HTTP" be qualified as "HTTP/2" ? in "...The group will specify HTTP and/or HTTP/3..." - Suggest to start a new paragraph at "The group will focus on a limited set..." More fundamentally: - there is an unbalance between UDP CONNECT (no requirement doc required) and IP proxying (requirement doc required). If there was prior work, then I would suggest to reference it. Also, I do not understand why IP proxying protocol solution has to wait until UDP CONNECT is done. - please add working with INT area for all IP proxying work (requirements & solution) >>> mostly a BLOCK for me - how can MASQUE have some non goals (multicast, discovery, ...) but may consider solution for extensibility (OK, I understand the goal of course but the wording sounds really weird and illogical)
Please add milestones before approval.