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

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 06:30:35 -0700

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.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 15:01:19 -0500

Thanks, Benjamin, for catching this ...

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/

I don't object to this proposed charter going for EXTERNAL review, either,
and that's actually what Eric is asking the IESG to ballot on ...

Sorry!

Spencer

> "draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp and
> draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 23:20:55 +0300

It is supposed to be same. I.e., we already have some draft that is
expected to be the draft we are going to consider as WG work draft in
the future.

The reason why the text is different for each of those is because
different people wrote the texts. I.e., before we considered items to
be added to charter, we wanted the people interested in item provide
good enough charter item so we can understand what we are adding, and
this means different people used different words to provide same
meaning. .

> starting point" are the same as "expected to be good starting points" and "are

That is ok for me. I also think that we as wg chairs and members
already understand that, so it is not really necessarely, but if it
makes it easier for someone else I have no objections changing the
text (and I do not really care which version is used). 

> proposal or work on a different approach, but do the right thing, of course.

That is fine for me. 
-- 
[email-masked]