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

["Shambavi (Sham)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thank you, I am in support of the DULT charter.

Best,
Sham

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:03 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:41:51 +0000
> Subject: [Unwanted-trackers] Call for consensus on proposed DULT charter
> 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/
>