System for Cross-domain Identity Management
charter-ietf-scim-02
Yes
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Murray Kucherawy
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Martin Duke)
(Robert Wilton)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2021-10-20 for -01-04)
Sent
Unsure whether "The currently planned scope of work for the SCIM WG is" is meaningful in a WG charter (especially the words "currently" and "planned", let's be more assertive). The milestones appear really aggressive to the point of being unrealistic ;-) Sometimes the text use "RFC 7642" (with a space character) but at other times "RFC7642". Please expand "HR" at the bottom of the charter. -éric
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-10-21 for -01-05)
Sent
I still worry that the list of what might go in a revision to 7643/7644 includes things that are "too much change" in order to qualify for Internet Standard. But there is a reasonable argument that we won't know until we see what the revised document looks like, and accordingly that there's no need to be over-restrictive in the charter. It's pretty common to see charters that use phrasing like "will use <individual draft> as input" rather than "based on <individual draft>".
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-10-18 for -01-04)
Sent
Minor readability suggestion: don't use semicolons instead of commas: "SCIM ", paragraph 2, nit: - experience; errata and interoperability feedback; and current security and best - ^ ^ + experience, errata and interoperability feedback, and current security and best + ^ ^
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-04)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Not sent