Skip to main content

IPv6 Operations
charter-ietf-v6ops-05

Yes

(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
(was Yes) No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-19 for -03-00) Unknown
It'd be good to see some milestones - particularly given the broad scope
of the charter.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-19 for -03-00) Unknown
Agree with Stephen that this seems fine to go ahead without external review, but also fine with it if external review is deemed necessary for some reason.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-19 for -03-00) Unknown
I also agree with Stephen.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-17 for -03-00) Unknown
This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness about adding 

"2.  Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and determine
solutions or workarounds to those issues."

because I wondered if this will make v6ops more attractive for NAT proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the right thing.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-19 for -03-00) Unknown
Definitely ready for external review. Could also be just fine to re-charter,
not sure what's intended.

This is though a pretty vague charter and mostly seems to characterise
what won't be done instead of what is planned to be done. I'm ok with
that given that the WG seems to have a bunch of work to do and doesn't
seem to have gone crazy in the past.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Unknown