Subject: [Taps] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on charter-ietf-taps-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:38:14 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-taps-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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/

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

I am tempted to ask that it be made explicit that this be ipv6 only.

I think that's an important concession for recognizing the ipv4 internet
has substantially ossified to the point that stack inovation that is 
generally useful is confined being above transport.

likewise interactions that involve transition technologies should be off
the table.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:33:19 -0500

So, two questions ...

Dave Thaler provided comments during internal review that went the other 
way - suggesting that TAPS should not be limited to the transport layer, 
but should also include things like websockets, precisely because of the 
point Joel made.

I'm thinking this question needs to go back to the mailing list where we 
worked out the TAPS charter proposal. Does that sound right? Or should 
the charter go for external review, and then get munged?

Second - I've seen some email today about tools.ietf.org e-mail 
addresses not working, but Joel's ballot e-mail was pointed directly to 
the TAPS mailing list, and it's not in the archive yet. That could be in 
moderator hold, but don't the IESG addresses get whitelisted 
automatically? Or are other people seeing ietf.org e-mail problems, too?

Spencer