Transport and Services Working Group
charter-ietf-tsvwg-07
Yes
(Paul Wouters)
No Objection
Jim Guichard
(Erik Kline)
(Francesca Palombini)
(Murray Kucherawy)
(Zaheduzzaman Sarker)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2023-11-17 for -06-00)
Sent
Per the criteria listed in the "Work in TSVWG must satisfy four conditions" paragraph, it wasn't clear to me how these are or will provide a gating function. Criteria (1) - (3) seem like they are (should be) the universal criteria for all documents adopted into any WG. Consider if something more specific to this WG's dynamics is needed.
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2023-11-27 for -06-00)
Not sent
This recharter updates the text to not refer to the Transport Area. It is not intended to increase the WG's technical scope, so it makes an effort to describe what the "Transport Layer" is and is not. It also updates the current dominant themes, which are outdated.
Paul Wouters Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06-00)
Not sent
Erik Kline Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Not sent
Francesca Palombini Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Not sent
John Scudder Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-11-29 for -06-00)
Sent
Nits -- OLD: The currently active TSVWG work items mostly falls under the following topics: NEW: The currently active TSVWG work items mostly fall under the following topics: OLD: (A) Maintenance and extensions of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol NEW: (A) Maintenance and extension of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-01)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-11-28 for -06-00)
Sent
(4) Agreement by the AD, who, depending on the scope of the proposed work item, may decide that an IESG review is needed first. - This could potentially be interpreted as meaning an IESG review of the document is needed, but I don't think that it was is intended here. Presumably the IESG review is of whether it is okay to adopt the work item.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06-00)
Not sent