QUIC
charter-ietf-quic-03

• Ready for external review (00-01)
• Approve (00-08)
• Ready for external review (01-00)
• Approve (01-04)
• Ready for external review (02-01)
• Approve (02-02)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-08 and is now closed.

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

"The QUIC 
protocol need not be defined to enable each of these abilities, or 
enable them in the same way as they are enabled by TCP when used 
with TLS 1.3, but the working group must consider the impact of the
protocol on network management practices, in line with RFC 7258."

The way this is phrased makes it sound like RFC 7258 is about protocol impact on network management, which isn't the case. I would suggest dropping "in line with RFC 7258." Alternatively, you could say something like:

"The QUIC 
protocol need not be defined to enable each of these abilities, or 
enable them in the same way as they are enabled by TCP when used 
with TLS 1.3, but the working group must consider the impact of the
protocol on network management practices, reflecting the tensions described in RFC 7258."

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Yes

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) Yes

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection