Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
charter-ietf-manet-04

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this addition:
- Document outlining challenges and best practices for deploying and
managing MANET networks.

This is long overdue, and promised for so many years.

Regards, Benoit

[Ballot comment]
Sorry for my late comment:

On "reporting statistics by traffic classification" MANET should probably cooperate with IPPM. Should that be mentioned in the charter?

[Ballot block]

Apologies if I'm getting the wrong thing here, but what is DLEP?
I seem to recall there being something similarly named that had
potentially significant security affects, so if this is the same thing,
then maybe the charter needs to say some more about that and
what the WG need to do about it. (Again, sorry if I'm getting the
wrong end of the wrong stick here but we can chat about it on
the call;-)

[Ballot comment]
As for other charters, the expected status of the work items is a plus (experimental, informational, proposed standard)
ex:  to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard RFC

[Ballot comment]
Just as a nit, the charter spells out FIB as "forwarding information base", but does not spell out or give references for several acronyms that are quite a bit less well known. If the text could either expand them or give references, that would help people who aren't skilled in the art ...

[Ballot comment]
This is a recharter of the manet WG. 

The WG has concluded the work in the original charter and is ready to move on with the maintenance of the developed protocols and a couple of focused work items.

The questions on the ballot seem confusing ("Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?").  To be clear, we're looking for approval without external review: Is this charter ready for approval without external review?