Ballot for charter-ietf-ccamp
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
No objection to this, but I do agree with Eric that an expansion of some of the acronyms may be useful - purely for people who are looking for working groups they may be interested in joining and partaking it and who don't wanna have to jump through hoops trying to figure out all the acryonyms in the charter :)
Please add milestones
The term "network slicing" was not mentioned in the descriptive part of the charter however it is in the working group scope. To understand the scope better one need to understand the term better. I would suggest to be more descriptive about it so the scope is better understood.
I understand that this revised charter is based on the existing -08 and inherits therefore some nits: - many acronyms are not expanded (they do not need because they are in the RFC editor list but I had to jump to that list to understand), unsure whether OEO, ROADM, ... are really useful and current - the use of "measurement" is also weird in this case but too late to change I guess ;-) - s/been approved by another Standards Development Organization/been specified by another Standards Development Organization/ ? - nit: sometimes it is IS-IS, other times it is ISIS ;-) - s/The CCAMP WG currently works/The CCAMP WG is tasked to work/ ? All in all, no objection as the rechartering appears more like a refresh/cleanup of the existing charter. But, this is really a broad scope WG.