On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-04: 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: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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" > If a topic transitions from small to big, then a recharter is needed to include it. I disagree that small equates to non-important. I don't have a better word than small - particularly teamed with the example. > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
