Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Thanks for addressing my comments.
Concur that the clarifications suggested by Magnus and Alissa would be helpful
Do we have a target security level (e.g., "the same as HTTPS with TLS 1.3") that we want this work to provide?
Support Alissa's and Magnus's block points and would like to see them clarified.
In support of Alissa's and Magnus' blocks I would also like to see this (initially) more narrowly scoped. Especially talking about "protocols or protocol extensions" without constraining this statement to a set of transport protocols that need to be used, as well as not constraining the list "range of simple communication methods" to a limited (initial) list basically allows this charter to define more or less any kind of protocol (over the whole stack).
I will follow the discussion around the BLOCK points of my fellow AD but I wonder why this is in ART and not in TSV? -éric
Thanks, this new charter do address the blocking points I have. The coordination with the API development still is unclear on this level. I do understand the challenge to be clear on it. So just leaving this as a comment.