Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
charter-ietf-xmpp-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.

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

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2013-02-21 for -02-00)
No email
send info
A typo that existed in the old version as well:
In the first sentence, change "an technology" to "a technology".

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Block) No Objection

No Objection (2013-02-28 for -02-00)
No email
send info

"Finally, the group needs to define a
sustainable solution to internationalization of XMPP addresses, since
the approach taken in RFC 3920 (based on stringprep profiles) is limited
to Unicode 3.2 characters. Both draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-* and
draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-* reflect community input so
far regarding these modifications, ...3

I searched all over for these drafts, but could not find them:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html It's probably some
text referring to RFC 6120 and RFC 6120

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-02-25 for -02-00)
No email
send info
I have a question, I'll ask the list but put it here for the 
record.

Q: loads of us use OTR, but there's no mention of that
in the charter - why don't we just spec that in an RFC?

Or two RFCs if need be, one for what's done now, one with
any changes the WG think are needed and will be deployed.

A quick web search leads me to believe that this [1]
might be how OTR works, but I could be wrong. Even having
an informational RFC as a stable reference would seem
to be an improvement.

[1] http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Protocol-v3-4.0.0.html

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -02-00)
No email
send info