Ballot for charter-ietf-suit
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Thank you for addressing my blocking comments.
I think s/has lead to/has led to/. English is an imperfect written language.
I'm balloting No Objection but I think it would be useful to spend some more time refining the charter before sending it out for external review. In addition to the question raised by Erik that has already been discussed, I wonder about constraining this to ASN.1. I've seen arguments on the list for why ASN.1 makes sense, but not why the WG should be prevented from working on other formats. I also wonder about this text being overly limiting, given that the milestones additionally include specifying an architecture: "The purpose of this group is to produce a second version of RFC 4108 that reflects the current best practices."
I think it'd probably be not necessary to mention the IOTSU workshop in the final charter. And instead of naming specific drafts in the charter, I'd prefer to see milestones that respectively could mention these as starting points.