Skip to main content

Routing Area Working Group
charter-ietf-rtgwg-05

Yes

(Alia Atlas)
(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Alissa Cooper)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04-02 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2014-09-30 for -04-02) Unknown
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?
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04-02) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
(was No Objection) Yes
Yes (2014-10-02 for -04-03) Unknown
As a survivor of a few proposals being Dispatched in RAI, I'm glad to see RTG adopting a similar model for proposal evaluation.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-01 for -04-02) Unknown
I agree with the comment that "optional" should be removed from the first sentence.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block) No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-02 for -04-04) Unknown
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"
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-02) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-01 for -04-03) Unknown
The updated charter looks good, I support the update.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04-03) Unknown