Network Configuration
charter-ietf-netconf-20

Agree with hacking back the descriptive text as suggested by Stewart. Probably replace with pointer to an RFC or two.

---

Would be interesting to add a note that the RestConf work will consider requirements suggested by the I2RS working group. That is, not a demand to listen to I2RS, and not a statement that I2RS will use RestConf, but an intermediate position that say that the Netconf WG will look to see what I2RS is working on.

Should be fixed before external review, but not showstoppers:

  2. Develop a zero touch configuration document, specific the NETCONF use case.

- I have no idea what "zero touch configuration" is, and the charter doesn't define it at all. It really should be described.
- The second clause is ungrammatical. Do you simply mean, "specific to the NETCONF use case"?
 
Milestone nits:

   Feb 2014   Submit initial WG drafts for zero touch configuration as WG item

"drafts"? There must be more than one? If so, s/item/items. Otherwise, s/drafts/draft.

   Feb 2014   Submit initial WG drafts for RESTCONF and patch operation as WG item

These need to be done as separate drafts but submitted together? Either make them two separate milestones, or s/item/items.

   May 2014   Submit zero touch configuration to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
[...]
   May 2014   Submit Reverse SSH and zero touch configuration to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

Seems to me the second should strike "and zero touch configuration".

I agree with Pete and Stephen on zero-touch, and I agree with Stephen that having the work group define that would be OK.

I'm with Pete on zero-touch and can imagine that being a 
source of contention. I'd be fine if the WG had to define
it after being re-chartered or if it were defined in the
charter (and definition via reference would be fine if
that's better).

I have no objection to the re-chartering.

A couple of notes

Reason for rechartering is stated as: 1st meeting at the 54th IETF in Yokohama, Japan

I imagine that no longer to be the reason for the charter text change.

Of greater substance, the charter spends a lot of time talking about the details of the protocol, that must be well known and well documented. It might be worth trimming it back to the current matters of substance.