Re: [Unwanted-trackers] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-dult-00-04: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Roman,

The -05 is indeed much clearer and consistent with detailed intended status.

While the main focus on gender-based violence must be kept (perhaps using intra-family wording if it exists in English to be broader as there are same-sex couples), may I suggest leaving the door open to other source of expertise with "notably" or "mainly" or "first" ?

-éric

On 15/02/2024, 14:29, "Roman Danyliw" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi Éric!


Thanks for the review. More below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unwanted-trackers <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of
> Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 6:53 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Unwanted-trackers] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-dult-
> 00-04: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-dult-00-04: 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-dult/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dult/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I do not see what "The WG will work with gender-based violence experts
> throughout development of the protocol" has to do in the list of program of
> work; may I suggest to move it at the end at the same place as discussions with
> Bluetooth SIG? Why limiting the interaction to only gender-based violence ?
>
>
> What is the intended status for "Design mechanisms to ensure that devices that
> do not correctly implement..." ?


With the insight of your review, Zahed's and a previous mailing list conversation, it is clear that the numbered list in the program of work caused confusion by mixing deliverables, and cross-cutting review activities and design properties that apply to the multiple bullet points prior. To convey this distinction in the new -05, I kept the text you referenced but removed it from the numbered list; and added text that these two items were broadly applicable to the standards track work described in the earlier text.


Others have commented the text related to coordination with gender-based violence group. I would add that this text and the prominence with which it was added is a direct result of BOF and ML discussions which considered it significant and distinct.


> The informal document in the milestones section does not appear in the
> "program of work", suggest to add it there as well.


Good point. A new item in the program of work has been added in -05.


Regards,
Roman