Adrian, Adding an explicit inclusion for routing-related YANG models not in other working groups sounds good to me. Thanks for the catch and having a helpful extra pointer/encouragement.
How does adding it as an explicit larger work item such as: "The specific larger topics that RTGWG is currently chartered to work on: * .... * Routing-related YANG models that are not appropriate for other RTG working groups. This may include generic routing YANG models. " Thoughts? Alia On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: Yes > > 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: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fully support this: a good change. > > I do not believe this change needs to go for external review. > > Nit... > s/an optional venue/a venue/ > (There is nothing in "a venue" that implies compulsion) > > --- > > Just noticed something we should add: > RTGWG would be a really good home for routing-related YANG models that > are not specifically covered by other RTG working groups, and for generic > routing YANG models. > Could this be added as a work item? > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
