Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08-05 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"Search Mailarchive
I do think that it would be helpful for this charter to discuss some of the needed WG interactions. In particular, where encodings of YANG are defined elsewhere (i.e. draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-04), there should be coordination of the impact of changes to the YANG language. Another question is where do you see the discussion of device profiles or sets of YANG modules needed to meet a particular purpose going? To me, this doesn't read as in scope for this charter and yet I don't think that we've thought through the right place for them. I'm ok with continued discussion for routing-related ones in RTGWG - but not all device profiles (i.e. a profile of modules needed for a firewall) belong anywhere near Routing.
The formatting of the introductory paragraph needs to be adjusted. I think this work is important and could help security area WGs like SACM.
I lean towards thinking this should have an external review, but I won't insist if others think it is unnecessary. The vast majority of the text for the old charter is changed. The milestone dates seem optimistic. Four of them are this month; is that intentional?
Doh. Earlier ballot got lost when version changed....
It would be useful to explicitly list needed/expected/required interactions with other WGs.