[IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 01 June 2018 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9774D12751F; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 06:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: ipsecme-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152785983554.14699.4435544739023643415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 06:30:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/UDWGMKHufjyAbnG_DVswSNa8TUs>
Subject: [IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 13:30:36 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: 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-ipsecme/



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

I don't object to this proposed charter going for internal review, but do have
one question.

When looking at some of the work items, I see

"A possible starting point is draft-yeung-g-ikev2" (nit, missing closing period)

"draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp and draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension
are expected to be good starting points for ESP compression."

"draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compression and raft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compact
are good starting point for IKEv2 compression." (nit, should be "starting
points")

"draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes could be used as a starting point for
this item."

If you're using different language to convey a nuance, that would be fine (I'm
missing it, but I miss things).

If you're saying the same thing in all four cases, I'd suggest using the same
phrasing in each case. so working group chairs and participants aren't trying
to figure out whether "possible starting point" and "could be used as a
starting point" are the same as "expected to be good starting points" and "are
good starting points".

I think I see "A possible starting point is" in most charters that point to
individual drafts, which lets the working group decide whether to adopt that
proposal or work on a different approach, but do the right thing, of course.