Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
charter-ietf-xmpp-03
Yes
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-02-21 for -02-00)
Unknown
A typo that existed in the old version as well: In the first sentence, change "an technology" to "a technology".
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-28 for -02-00)
Unknown
"Finally, the group needs to define a sustainable solution to internationalization of XMPP addresses, since the approach taken in RFC 3920 (based on stringprep profiles) is limited to Unicode 3.2 characters. Both draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-* and draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-* reflect community input so far regarding these modifications, ...3 I searched all over for these drafts, but could not find them: http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/petersaint-andre.html It's probably some text referring to RFC 6120 and RFC 6120
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-25 for -02-00)
Unknown
I have a question, I'll ask the list but put it here for the record. Q: loads of us use OTR, but there's no mention of that in the charter - why don't we just spec that in an RFC? Or two RFCs if need be, one for what's done now, one with any changes the WG think are needed and will be deployed. A quick web search leads me to believe that this [1] might be how OTR works, but I could be wrong. Even having an informational RFC as a stable reference would seem to be an improvement. [1] http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Protocol-v3-4.0.0.html
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-00)
Unknown