Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure
charter-ietf-opsec-05
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
I have no issues with the existing text. However, if the ADs and chairs were to consider adding "privacy" to the scope, I would be very pleased to see it.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for handling my early review comments.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
All my points have been covered by other ADs already.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
r/security.In particular,/security. In particular, there's a couple of places where there are two spaces between words - might be datatracker injected. I support Stewart's block, but I'd be happy with the following modification to the 1st sentence (r/must be through a/is by a working group): New protocol work is addressed by a working group chartered for that work, or via one of the individual submission processes.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Adrian's comment. Adding privacy would here would be a good thing if the WG are willing to take it into account. It'd be a bad thing if the WG didn't care though.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my concerns.
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection