More Instant Messaging Interoperability
charter-ietf-mimi-01

Please convert the milestones enumerated in the charter text to be milestones in the datatracker.

I have two comments/questions -

1. it says - 
           In a future phase, the working group may recharter to
work on audio and video. The working group will not standardize new audio/video
signaling or media protocols but may recommend the use of existing protocols
and suites such as SIP and WebRTC.

  If a rechartering is needed to work with AV then why in this charter we are scoping the future work?

2. why do we have two different way to express when the group needed to be rechartered? actually what is the intended separation between rechartering needed vs out of scope?

Thanks for a very readable and instructive charter.

Like Lars, I wonder why there are both a 'out of scope' and a 'need to recharter' lists.

The unusual length of the charter makes me wonder whether there is really a core of interested MIMI participants to work on something real; i.e., the charter looks more like a diplomatic compromise among opposing parties, so not a good sign for a team work. But, I am trusting the shepherding AD on this topic.

Regards

Along the lines of other comments -- focus the charter on the deliverables and not on what is out of scope.

# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-mimi-00-01

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Paragraph 5
```
  Modern messaging services commonly support numerous features including plain
  and rich text, delivery notifications, read receipts, replies, reactions,
  presence, and many more. The working group will identify a baseline set of
  messaging features and specify a content format to allow this feature set to be
  implemented interoperably. This format must be usable in the presence of E2EE.
  In defining the format, the working group will seek to reuse existing
  primitives (especially existing semantics) including previously defined message
  headers, MIME types, and URIs where practical.
```
Is this baseline set supposed to be extended over time? If yes, it
would be good to say so here, so that the mechanisms the group will
develop can easily support extensions.

### "A", paragraph 3
```
  A recharter would be required should the working group decide to work on:

  * Metadata processing to manage spam and abuse

  * Interoperable mechanisms for group administration or moderation across systems

  The following are out of scope for the working group:
```
I don't understand why these two items are specifically called out
as "a recharter would be required" rather than simply listing them
into the "out of sopee list", the items in which can also become work
items after a recharter.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Paragraph 0
```
- both consumer and enterprise to interoperate without undermining the security
+ both consumers and enterprises to interoperate without undermining the security
+              +               +
```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool