Summary: Has a BLOCK. Has enough positions to pass once BLOCK positions are resolved.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
This charter uses the term "I2RS protocol" and I2RS isn't doing its own protocol. Now, what I heard secondhand is that the intent is for NetConf to defined the needed capabilities so that the I2RS WG can define the necessary extensions - probably to RestConf - to support the well-documented requirements. As Responsible AD for I2RS, I need to actually hear and understand the change and intended split of work. This change is going to require a recharter for I2RS, since it is explicitly not chartered to do any protocol work; the expectation has been that this would be done in NetConf and NetMod, as needed. I am quite positive on the idea of letting the I2RS WG define the necessary extensions and finally be able to move at the speed appropriate to the active contributors - but we need to be correct in terminology, clear on the work split, and understand how this will proceed.
I think this is ready for external review, which I understand to be the intent. I do not think it is ready for approval until the external review occurs.
With Alia's edit for removing the I2RS protocol, I think this is ready.
The first paragraph... The NETCONF Working Group, previously named after the NETCONF protocol, now renamed as the NETwork CONFiguration Working Group, is responsible for the development and maintenance of protocols for YANG data model driven management, for the necessary framework where these protocols run, and for the YANG modules that formalize protocol behavior and are required from a protocol perspective. ...seems to have significantly widened what the netconf WG is responsible for beyond NETCONF/RESTCONF, but the rest of the charter only talks about those two protocols. If the intent is to allow the WG to work on other protocols (or at least consider them if they exist, are brought to the WG, etc.), then it may be a good idea to include text that specifically mentions it.