Subject: [Ppm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-ppm-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:08:07 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ppm-00-00: 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-ppm/

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

(1) The public health example in the first paragraph seems out of scope for the
IETF.

I can imagine how a public health authority might want to measure exposure
using the protocols and algorithms produced by this WG, but that should be
their decision.  The details of that use case are outside the general core
competency of the IETF and should not be part of the considerations.

(2) "The starting point for PPM WG discussions shall be draft-gpew-priv-ppm."

I don't feel comfortable listing an ID as a starting point because it is not a
consensus document.  The WG should decide to use the document as a reference or
take a completely different path.  The rest of the charter should stand on its
own to provide working parameters.

(3) It would be nice to include milestones.

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 22:49:37 +0000

Hi Alvaro!

Thanks for the review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 5:08 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-ppm-00-00: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 

[snip]

> consensus document.  The WG should decide to use the document as a
> reference or take a completely different path.  The rest of the charter should
> stand on its own to provide working parameters.

This convention has been used in the last few new-start Security WGs as these unadopted documents animated the intent of work items.  See PrivacyPass ("Note that the specifications developed by this working group will be informed by the following initial drafts: - draft-davidson-pp-protocol-00; - draft-davidson-pp-architecture-00; - draft-svaldez-pp-http-api-00"), OHAI ("The working group will use draft-thomson-http-oblivious as input") and SCIM ("will use draft-hunt-scim-mv-paging as input" and "will use draft-ansari-scim-soft-delete as input").

Regards,
Roman