Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning
charter-ietf-teep-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.

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

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-08 for -00-05)
No email
send info
No objection to the charter, but we should clarify two points.

1. I scratched my head: What does an "application layer protocol" mean in this context?

This working group aims to develop an application layer protocol providing TEEs
with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted
applications.

What would the difference with?
This working group aims to develop a management protocol providing TEEs
with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted
applications.

Or even?
This working group aims to develop a protocol providing TEEs
with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted
applications.
 
2. 
Second, a solution
document that describes the above-described functionality that will be
developed. 

A solution document? I believe it's too vague.
I understand you want to specify a new protocol. You should clarify and adapt the milestones.


Editorial:
- Confused by the comma in the following sentence:

For example, implementations of the TEE
concept have been developed by ARM, and Intel using the TrustZone and the SGX
technology, respectively.

Do you want to say?
For example, implementations of the TEE
concept have been developed by ARM and Intel, using the TrustZone and the SGX
technology, respectively.

Or maybe better?
For example, implementations of the TEE
concept have been developed by ARM using the TrustZone and by Intel using the SGX
technology.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00-04)
No email
send info
"providing TEEs providing lifecycle management" --> something is wrong there

"The group will produce the following deliverables. The first draft is" --> kind of implies that the deliverable is a draft rather than an RFC

s/other relevant standards/other relevant standards groups/

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00-04)
No email
send info
No objection to this charter, but do the milestones for the Solutions draft make sense? I'm reading 

Date	Milestone
Jul 2019	        Begin WGLC for Solution document
Jan 2019	Progress Architecture document to the IESG for publication
Dec 2018	Begin WGLC for Architecture document
Aug 2018	Progress Solution document to the IESG for publication
Mar 2018	Adopt a solution document
Mar 2018	Adopt an Architecture document

as saying the draft goes to the IESG in Aug 2018 and enters WGLC in July 2019 ...

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection