Security Dispatch
charter-ietf-secdispatch-01

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

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

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00-00)
No email
send info
I agreed with Spencer's comment last time, and still do. But it's a nit and I want to see this chartered, so I'm balloting yes.

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Adam Roach Yes

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Please fix the formatting of lists prior to finalizing the charter.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Comment (2018-03-06 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Nit: formatting for "options" is lost on last couple items.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-08 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Same remark as for the DHC charter.
It's the exact same version as the "ready for external review" and none of the comments have been addressed, or even answered (the bare minimum). 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-secdispatch/ballot/586411/

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00-00)
No email
send info
I had the same comment on -00 when balloting for internal review, but here it is again.

I looked at the proposed charter for SECDISPATCH, and didn't see a reference to https://tools.ietf.orOug/html/rfc7957. I'm guessing from the name that the intention is to charter a SEC-area equivalent to DISPATCH, but that's a guess. If the intention is that this works the same way DISPATCH works, it would be good to know that, and if it's not going to work the way DISPATCH works, it would be helpful to focus on what would be different.

I notice that the numbered and unnumbered lists in the charter start wrapping about two thirds of the way through the lists.

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection