Skip to main content

Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend
charter-ietf-extra-01

Yes


No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.

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

Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2017-08-01 for -00-01) Unknown
No objection / yes, but I did have some nits:

1: "When such bursts coincide, it???s important to give them a home." -- it's formatting.

2: "Upon formation, the working group will consider any existing Internet Drafts that could be appropriate for its processing." -- at first I felt that this sentence was very vague and open-ended, but then I realized that it is a larger issue - the charter starts with "These include in particular, but are not limited to, the following: [IMAP, SIEVE]". The "not limited to", combined with the above sentence makes it sound like the group can choose any drafts, not just IMAP / SIEVE ones. Also, what if these drafts are in other WGs? Does it take them? Advise / consult? 

3: "While an interest poll for a new related idea is fine, the ..." - I'm not 100% sure what this is trying to say; it should only seriously consider things which are IDs? 

4: "Also eligible for consideration is incorporation of accumulated" -> " Also eligible for consideration is the incorporation of accumulated" (nit, sorry OCD kicked in!)

5: "However, any new functionality is expected to be pursued via extensions rather than changes to the basic protocols wherever possible." - I think "base protocols" reads better (also a nit).
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2017-07-26 for -00-01) Unknown
In case this makes it easier for people to evaluate, the following are some documents pending processing:

draft-murchison-imap-list-myrights-01
draft-bosch-sieve-special-use-02
draft-melnikov-imap-64bit-01
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-08-02 for -00-01) Unknown
I'm not going to block external review, but I agree with Warren's comments about the open-ended scope, and I will go further to say that I don't think long-lived working groups are a good idea for work areas that are usually quiet but with occasional flareups. My experience is that, when such groups are quiet, people quit paying attention to them. Then when people try to bring new work they are likely to get ignored unless do the work needed to get people's attention --which is much what would happen if the group didn't exist in the first place.

I'd be much happier chartering a group to work on the specific things people have in mind. It can always be rechartered if more work comes in.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-08-02 for -00-01) Unknown
No objection - though agree with Warren's comments, I think it needs to be tighter scoped on what will be the considerations for input.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-08-02 for -00-01) Unknown
I agree with Warren, it would be much better to see a tighter scope defined.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-02) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-07-12 for -00-01) Unknown
I'd be a Yes, except that Alexey isn't a Yes, yet. But this looks like a fine thing to do. 

You might consider whether it's worth explicitly pointing out that this working group will likely be long-lived, and is as likely to quiesce as to conclude, when the work queue becomes empty, if that's what you are thinking will happen.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-01) Unknown