Re: [Unwanted-trackers] Call for consensus on proposed DULT charter

Hi Roman,

I've reviewed 00-03 and I support this charter text.

David (speaking as individual contributor here)

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:37 AM Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the follow-up.  New text merged into 00-03.
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:07 AM
> *To:* Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> *Cc:* unwanted-trackers@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Unwanted-trackers] Call for consensus on proposed DULT
> charter
>
>
>
> That would be sufficient for me.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Chris Inacio
>
> inacio@cert.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2024, at 12:22 AM, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Chris!
>
>
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
>
>
> I see your point on the confusing text in work item #2.  I would propose
> using the same framing text already in work item #3.  Specifically,
> s/Develop standards-track best practices/Develop standards-track
> guidance/.  Would that be clearer?
>
>
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Inacio <inacio@cert.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2024 4:25 PM
> *To:* Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> *Cc:* unwanted-trackers@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Unwanted-trackers] Call for consensus on proposed DULT
> charter
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m not sure I’m in agreement with “Develop standards-track best
> practices”.  What does that mean?  Can you interoperate 3 best practices to
> advance the standard?
>
>
>
> Otherwise I support the text.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Chris Inacio
>
> inacio@cert.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2024, at 9:41 PM, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless
> you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Hi!
>
> With the benefit of discussions at two BOFs at IETF 117 and 118, there
> appears to be a strong consensus signal to form a WG around the topic of
> Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers (DULT) [1].  There also appeared to a
> critical mass of energy to do the work (write and review drafts).
>
> IETF 118 BOF identified critical charter changes that were needed to
> refine the DULT scope [2].  In the weeks following the BoF, PRs have been
> filed and merged against these open issues.  Conversation appears to have
> subsided on the list.  I’d like to assess where we stand with a formal
> consensus check on this revised charter. Please review
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dult/00-02/ (00-02) and
> respond to the list by Thursday, Feb 1, 2024.
>
> ==[ consensus check question ]==
>
> Do you support the charter text? Or do you have objections or blocking
> concerns (please describe what they might be and how you would propose
> addressing the concern)?
>
> ==[ consensus check question ]==
>
> If you previously spoke up at the 117/118 BoFs, please repeat yourself
> here.  The outcome of this consensus check will inform the next steps with
> DULT.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/minutes-118-dult-202311061200-00
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/unwanted-trackers/mAIFv6ns5GGS79Uch3cj80uVa2U/
> --
> Unwanted-trackers mailing list
> Unwanted-trackers@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unwanted-trackers
>
>
> --
> Unwanted-trackers mailing list
> Unwanted-trackers@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unwanted-trackers
>