SIP Recording
charter-ietf-siprec-02
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
(Jari Arkko)
(Richard Barnes)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-05-12 for -01-00)
Unknown
I'm good without external review.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-25 for -01-00)
Unknown
I see no reason for external review for this minor change.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-15 for -01-00)
Unknown
I though it was a new WG. So much for me: I should be paying more attention to SIP related WGs :-) Two small points: - expand MSRP - formatting issue in the first paragraph
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-11 for -01-00)
Unknown
I'm not really sure why that change is even required. but ok.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-15 for -01-00)
Unknown
I agree with Stephen's suggestion to add a reference to the 'shiny new RFC' on PM.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-13 for -01-00)
Unknown
Like Joel, I'm not clear on the reason for the charter change (note to self as tools liaison: there should be a place for the AD to add a comment to explain such things), but I agree that either way no external review required.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-15 for -01-00)
Unknown
Thanks for the notes about privacy and security and the ref to 2804. I think I would suggest (but not block on) two additions: - Perhaps say that security for recordings needs to be commensurate with the security for the underlying calls - there's a problem if e.g. one has setup DTLS-SRTP for calls, but recordings have to (not can) be left lying about in clear. - Consider adding a ref to our shiny new RFC7258 as well as 2804 - I don' t think that ought be difficult for the enterprise cases that I assume are the meat of the work here, but it might help in e.g. crafting applicability statement text later if that's in the charter.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Unknown