[Dance] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-02: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 09 September 2021 12:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: dance-chairs@ietf.org, dance@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <163119080055.20817.1235176727120133683@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 05:33:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dance/8zshToUZCV2NUHttZwuoDXAVZqA>
Subject: [Dance] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-02: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dance-00-02: 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-dance/



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

The charter defines “RPK” as “raw public keys”. This is a near-collision with
“RPKI” defined in RFC 6480 as “resource public key infrastructure“. Maybe this
use of “RPK” is long-standing practice, in which case of course there’s not
much to be done. I point it out in case the observation is useful. (Also, the
acronym although defined is never referenced in the charter, so the definition
could easily be left out if desired. The same is true of a few other acronyms.)

[Dance] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ie… John Scudder via Datatracker
Re: [Dance] John Scudder's No Objection on charte… Roman Danyliw
Re: [Dance] John Scudder's No Objection on charte… John Scudder