[Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 27 June 2019 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA441202E7; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 06:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156164124047.21323.7390079965019244513.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 06:14:00 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/3H09SD1oGTlTf1Ls9n_xvyJLPUo>
Subject: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:14:07 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cbor/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Mirja's second DISCUSS item.  I'd add to it that the distinction
between "Internet-wide" and "Narrow purpose" is also not clear to me.  In
particular, I'm not sure why "Narrow purpose" couldn't also be published
through the ISE.