Security Dispatch
charter-ietf-secdispatch-01

[Ballot comment]
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/

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
"The WG will attempt to come to a prompt resolution of the appropriate
disposition of each proposal during the WG meeting."

This could be read to imply that decisions about dispatching work occur only at WG meetings and not on the mailing list. I would hope the WG would be able to make some dispatching decisions on the list as well, or on the list in combination with F2F or virtual discussion.

[Ballot comment]
- "The Security Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for
new work in the SEC area an  if the work is appropriate for the IETF"

Somehow, you want to add for new work not under the scope of a current WG charter.
Editorial: correct "SEC area an  if the work"

-
"In order to help the proposed new work succeed, the working group aims to
assist the proposed new work in:

1. Providing a clear problem statement, motivation and deliverables.
"

The DISPATCH wording is way better:

"Guiding principles for the proposed new work include:

1. Providing a clear problem statement, motivation and deliverables for
the proposed new work."

Justification: it's not up to the WG to provide a clear problem statement, but up to the proponents.

[Ballot comment]
Two very nitty nits.
1st para. s/in the SEC area an  if/in the SEC area and if/

Numbered list line wrapping went bananas.

I like the sentence about precedence, a LOT!

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.