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

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 27 June 2019 04:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <156161024386.20075.12704154800776897327.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:37:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/yBu_JJrGwKIW7m7M9FOA1jHawLo>
Subject: [Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk 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 also agree with Mirja's second point, and with Alvaro's note that examples
of WG adoption work better when they are actually WG-adopted documents.

The enumeration of potential inputs to the DISPATCH-like process seems potentially
quite broad, though I suppose that need not translate to "approval" or adoption  by
the WG.

I found the wording confusing in some parts of the charter, such as "collect these
features", the treatment of CDDL evolution as a "sequence of editions", and what
makes an "Internet wide [sic]" specification.

   This work would not be expected to be published by the IETF.

"as an RFC", presumably?

[Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-i… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker