Multiprotocol Label Switching
charter-ietf-mpls-07

I am Ok with the charter, but the headline in the tool says "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?", interesting isn't it?

Is it now w/ or w/o external review?

   "The responsibility includes..."

What an odd construction. Can better words be chosen?

-   Maintain existing MPLS requirements, mechanisms, and protocols,
    in coordination with other working groups, e.g. CCAMP, PWE3
    and OPSAWG working groups.

I'm not sure what work item(s) you're talking about here. Is the WG updating existing requirements documents and/or protocol documents in response to new requirements from CCAMP, PWE3, and OPSAWG? Not clear from what's said what is being referred to.

-   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
    and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.

Same question as above. "Evolve" is an odd word to choose, and I'm curious if the list of protocols is exhaustive. Please clarify.

-   Determine MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for
    multi-areas/multi-AS in cooperation with the CCAMP WG

Is there a reason this bullet changed from the previous version? It seems to have removed the "and document it" part.

I'm not going to block this rechartering, but I would like to hear why the charter became (apparently) more mushy than it had been.

I'm fine to have this go forward, but as a general observation: Some RAI participants have been suggesting that WG charters have a clear definition of success -- when will we know the WG is done?  Having the answer to this question be clear in the charter seems to me like a good way to avoid scope creep and endless WGs.  

This charter seems to take completely the opposite approach, so it does give me some concern of MPLS creep.  However, I'll leave it to the responsible ADs to decide whether this is an issue in this case.

Just one little innocent question:-)

This says:

-   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
    and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.

and

-   Document mechanisms for securing MPLS networks in coordination
    with the KARP working group.

Karp is precluded from considering confidentiality and its charter
doesn't mention privacy.

Assuming that MPLS might be used e.g. near the endpoints of
transatlantic fibres, (is it?) do you think the WG might be open 
to considering work on confidentiality/privacy, perpaps even on
opportunistic encryption or the like? I guess one could argue
that there are requirements there that have only recently 
become clear.