Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the careful read and pointers.

The sentences were very carefully tweaked to satisfy concerns of Terry, Jari, 
Alia, and others. So may be some redundancy though each paragraph was carefully 
phrased to address their concerns. I'll take a look with the chairs to see if 
we can do some smoothing without impacting the message.

On the milestones, we need to discuss within the WG to understand the maturity 
and priority. The discussion has started noting the most obvious ones to go 
standards-track:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/sscwbpgnSgfJ4980oYomwGB5_T4

Thanks again-
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: iesg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:41 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/



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

I see: 
  The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol 
  and produce standard-track documents (unless the content of the 
  document itself is of a different type, e.g., informational or 
  experimental). 

And I see a redundant sentence:
  Documents of these work items will as well target standard-track 
  unless the main content of the document itself clearly demands for 
  a different type (e.g., informational or experimental). In the latter 
  case the Working Group needs to determine the proper document 
  class.

I'm afraid that those two sentences are so generic that they don't add
anything to the charter.
The following sentence is clear though, for the first set of
deliverables:
  In order to produce a coherent set of documents, the first (and high 
  priority) work item of the LISP Working Group is to develop a 
  standard-track solution based on the completed Experimental RFCs 
  and the experience gained from early deployments.

As AD, if you know already the track of each of the documents (the ones
under "In parallel with the previous main work item, the LISP WG will
work on the items listed below:") or want to provide guidance, my advice
is to add the milestones and the respected expected status.  
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/charter/ as an example.


_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to