Subject: [Dance] Robert Wilton's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 05:58:31 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dance-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dance/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds useful.

I'm wondering whether restricting the initial use case to TLS client only will
limit its usefulness in IOT onboarding?

I'm not sure if it is important, but from the scope of work, it is unclear to
me whether the format of DNS DANE records would need to change, or whether this
is use a new use of the existing DANE records.

Nits:

Para 3:
"DANE builds on" => "DANE built on"?  Or otherwise perhaps change "DANE did
not" to "the DANE WG did not".

Para 4:
"large deployment" => "large deployments"?

Are the milestone dates correct (i.e., the architecture and use cases is
expected to be standardized after the solution)?

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 07:30:55 -0700

> limit its usefulness in IOT onboarding?

This comes from the discussions in the BOF where there was concern that
the problem space was too large, because a lot of future follow-on
efforts were discussed.  The result is that we agreed that we should
start with just the client side only, and change the charter after we
achieved success with the single (but not necessarily trivial) starting
problem.

> "large deployment" => "large deployments"?

Accepted in my local copy ()

> expected to be standardized after the solution)?

Good point, they were supposed to be "after architecture".  I've changed
my copy to indicate just that.

https://github.com/hardaker/danish-bof/blob/main/charter.md
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:47:43 +0000

Hi Wes,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Wes Hardaker
> Sent: 08 September 2021 15:31
> To: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; The IESG
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on charter-ietf-dance-00-01: (with
> COMMENT)
> 

Thanks for the background, that makes sense.

I had missed the BOFs due to conflicts, and I hadn't seen Roman's comments re the BOFs before posting my own.

Regards,
Rob