Computing-Aware Networking
charter-ietf-can-00-07

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-can-00-05

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Paragraph 0
```
  Computing-Aware Networking (can)
```
Are we renaming this WG?

### Paragraph 20
```
  Milestones:
```
Would be good to agree on standards levels for these milestones

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Paragraph 2
```
- optimize how a network edge node steers traffic based on these metrics,
-                                                                      -
```

#### Paragraph 2
```
- as appropriate to the service.
+ to the service.
```

#### Paragraph 3
```
- and transport of traffic from network edge to service instance. It also
-      ^ ^^^^^
+ and steering of traffic from network edge to service instance. It also
+    + ++ ^ ^
```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot block]
I have two easy to fix block comments which I believe needed to be discussed and would clarify the charter better if addressed -

# it says -

  "Exposure of network and compute conditions to applications
is not in the scope of CAN. As part of its work, the CAN WG will seek
advice and expertise from the ART and TSV areas."

  I am confused, if the advice and expertise is for the exposure of the network and compute condition and which is out of the scope, then what would the advice for? This need to clarified.

# it says -

    "The CAN WG will initially focus on single domain models."

  Does this mean CAN will under this charter will eventually work on multi domain models? will there be a rechartering needed to work on multi domain models? This is going to impact the architecture I guess whether the solution is for single domain or multiple domains.

[Ballot comment]
And one comment to clarify the service examples -

# can we change the service examples? it says - "for some services (for example, VR/AR, intelligent
transportation)". I don't really know what the intelligent transportation service is, may be that is because my lack of knowledge, hence very hard to see what requirements it puts that requires compute awareness.  AR/VR as a technology is mostly deployed in the user devices now and the network assisted AR/VR application is kind of still in research, hence may not be best examples for the CAN work.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my BLOCK

s/The IETF has done past work on exposing network conditions to endpoints
(notably ALTO)/The IETF is working on exposing network conditions to endpoints
(notably ALTO)

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-can-00-03

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Paragraph 21
```
  Milestones:
```
I assume all of these will be Informational?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
s/The IETF has done past work on exposing network conditions to endpoints
(notably ALTO)/The IETF is working on exposing network conditions to endpoints
(notably ALTO)