Skip to main content

System for Cross-domain Identity Management


Roman Danyliw

No Objection

Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Martin Duke
Murray Kucherawy
Robert Wilton
Zaheduzzaman Sarker

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2021-10-18 for -01-04)
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 No Objection

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Robert Wilton No Objection

Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2021-10-20 for -01-04)
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.


(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2021-10-21 for -01-05)
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>".