Common Control and Measurement Plane
charter-ietf-ccamp-09

Yes

Ketan Talaulikar
Mohamed Boucadair

No Objection

Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
Roman Danyliw
(Erik Kline)
(Paul Wouters)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08-02 and is now closed.

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

Ketan Talaulikar
Yes
Mohamed Boucadair
(was Block) Yes
Comment (2026-03-05 for -08-03) Sent 
Hi all,

Thanks for the changes made so far [1]. These are good ones as it insists that the models are technology-specific.

Ketan's proposal [2] makes sense to me. 

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-ccamp%2Fwithmilestones-08-02.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-ccamp%2Fwithmilestones-08-03.txt&difftype=--hwdiff

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/abha9feKn_3mm17sLf0zFaFPja4/
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment (2026-03-02 for -08-02) Sent 
> Definition of data models
> and management objects for network control and management of non-packet
> technology-specific network elements, topologies, and abstractions. 

After discussing with Ketan, I am adding this as a note that the ONSEN BoF is
scheduled for IETF 125. If that BoF results in the WG being formed, then
the responsible ADs will come together to discuss how the work around
data modules for abstraction will be handled as we advance.

Separate from that, there is work around data modules for network topology 
that is already underway in the IVY WG. Therefore, it is not clear whether 
the topology work identified here is different from the work in IVY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

"YANG", paragraph 2
> as standards track RFCs with an exception of a few documents (e.g., architec
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "exception" in this context is "to", not "of". Did
you mean "exception to"?
Roman Danyliw
(was Block) No Objection
Erik Kline Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08-02) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Paul Wouters Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -08-02)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent