On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: Block > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Since Adrian's proposal actually made it to the latest proposed charter, > let me file a BLOCK. > > 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, > The sentence above is a good addition. > > and for generic > > routing YANG models. > But how is this different than "routing-related YANG models"? > I believe having those two categories adds to the confusion. Maybe > because I don't understand the difference. > > Once this clarification is done, I support RTGWG. It's actually similar > to OPSAWG. > As I sent in another email, I can see some differences - but don't feel strongly that it adds anything. I've updated the charter to remove the "generic routing YANG models" versus the routing-related ones. Alia > Regards, Benoit > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Editorial point/ > > RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an > existing > working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might > otherwise be > AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that > RTGWG > can provide. > > Not sure "small" is the right adjective. > In OPSAWG, we had small topics that became big topics (example: 3 CAPWAP > documents, multiple EMAN documents that triggered the EMAN WG creation, > IEEE/IETF MIB relationship RFC). I would remove "small", which equates to > "non important" > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
