IPv6 Operations

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Alia Atlas) (was Yes) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -03-00)
It'd be good to see some milestones - particularly given the broad scope
of the charter.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Ben Campbell No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -03-00)
Agree with Stephen that this seems fine to go ahead without external review, but also fine with it if external review is deemed necessary for some reason.

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

Comment (2015-08-17 for -03-00)
This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness about adding 

"2.  Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and determine
solutions or workarounds to those issues."

because I wondered if this will make v6ops more attractive for NAT proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the right thing.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -03-00)
Definitely ready for external review. Could also be just fine to re-charter,
not sure what's intended.

This is though a pretty vague charter and mostly seems to characterise
what won't be done instead of what is planned to be done. I'm ok with
that given that the WG seems to have a bunch of work to do and doesn't
seem to have gone crazy in the past.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-08-19 for -03-00)
I also agree with Stephen.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection