Ballot for charter-ietf-cbor
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I support Mirja's second DISCUSS item. I'd add to it that the distinction between "Internet-wide" and "Narrow purpose" is also not clear to me. In particular, I'm not sure why "Narrow purpose" couldn't also be published through the ISE.
I second Alvaro's comments.
Nit: "a mechanism other that" should be "a mechanism other than". "and add to a second edition of the specification if warranted" ... presumably this is in the re-charter because it *is* warranted. I suggest removing "if warranted". "The body of existing specifications that make use of CDDL is considered precious": Awwwwwwwww... :-) "It is currently expected that this would be done using a Wiki of some type. This work would not be expected to be published by the IETF." Yayyyyy! Thanks. Nit: that are either currently adopted by the working group, by other working groups, or as individual submissions" is not a parallel list. Maybe, "that are currently adopted by the working group, are work items in other working groups, or exist as individual submissions." Also, I suggest removing the paragraph break between this paragraph and the next. Nit: "Internet wide specifications" needs a hyphen: "Internet-wide specifications".
I agree with Mirja's second point.
I have a couple of editorial suggestions: (1) The charter talks about "using a DISPATCH like process". While most people might have an idea of what that is, I think mentioning it is not necessary. (2) The first category is: General purpose specifications that are expected to have broad usage: The working group will normally adopt and publish such proposals. Examples of proposals in this category are CBOR Sequence media type (draft-bormann-cbor-sequence) and Error Indications tag (draft-richter-cbor-error-tag). It would be nice if the examples of WG adoption were adopted documents. I think the description is enough -- let the WG decide if these are this type of documents. (3) Similarly, in the third category... "An example of this might be portions of draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid..." The tentative language is not great, even for an example.
I also agree with Mirja's second point, and with Alvaro's note that examples of WG adoption work better when they are actually WG-adopted documents. The enumeration of potential inputs to the DISPATCH-like process seems potentially quite broad, though I suppose that need not translate to "approval" or adoption by the WG. I found the wording confusing in some parts of the charter, such as "collect these features", the treatment of CDDL evolution as a "sequence of editions", and what makes an "Internet wide [sic]" specification. This work would not be expected to be published by the IETF. "as an RFC", presumably?
Hello, I have few comments: * why only mention verified errata? what about "held for document update" type of errata? I also note there are 4 Reported errata. A more general sentence could be: "The CBOR working group will update RFC 7049 based on existing errata." * I find "popular" a bit subjective. Is that really needed? * s/a Full Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/ Thank you -m
Thanks for addressing my block!