Subject: [sfc] Adam Roach's No Objection on charter-ietf-sfc-01-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:25:27 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-sfc-01-02: 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-sfc/

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

I'm really excited about the addition of a standards-track security deliverable
for SFC.

The ballot question is unclear about whether we're being asked to approve for
external review or approval without external review. If it were clearly the
former, I'd be balloting "yes" to show additional support for the security
deliverable addition. If we are being asked the latter question, I feel that
the changes in here are substantial enough to warrant external review, but not
enough that I'd stand in the way of moving forward.

I support Ben's comment.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:22 -0500

Adam,

Your feedback to the ballot question is exactly how to make the
determination
between needing external review and not.

One of the aspect is that we know do the part of the "external review"
which includes the
WG before bringing it to the IETF - so the stages are muddled.  To me, the
question is
whether other SDOs or the broader IETF community may have comments.

I'm happy to have an external review as well.

Regards,
Alia